Alexbarbershop

Open letter: I was temporarily banned for “not categorizing” my commons image uploads properly but a quick glance at my uploads will reveal this is false/obsequious.

CC: stewards, others via electronic mail.

Good Morning Wikimedia,

I have been banned temporarily by an administrative user (an excellent content contributor but a highly toxic moderator) who I respect and has contributed meaningful work to the commons but whose administrative practices have degraded to tyrannical.  This sort of thing is entirely tolerated by Wikimedia’s paid staff and admins and I want you to examine this more seriously.

The real reason for this ban is that Pi.1415926535 improperly removed this extremely rare image, the only one in existence online of a ware and brookfield street railway trolley which is exempted from copyright by §303 of the us copyright act, which I called him on and to which this admin responded putatively.

Actually I have contributed so much for so long to wikipedia and more recently commons at my own expense that I don’t understand how I have to answer to these mid-tier admins or why anybody not actually employed by wikipedia.  

Please forward this to the appropriate administrative department as I cannot and will not expend any further energy acting as my own defense attorney for contributions that are eminently unproblematic.  

This moderator should not be banned as they have made valuable contributions but they should be chastised for extensive misuse of punitive authority for matters of preference completely unrelated to copyright or terms of use.

Tolerance of this type of moderation has stunted and limited the amount of quality public use content on commons and the number and quality of editors as many skilled editors are undoubtedly chased away due to the toxic moderation culture at wikipedia.  

It is bad enough that our work product is not compensated for, something that we choose to disregard in furtherance of human knowledge and Wikimedia’s broader mission aims, but giving away our labor for free should certainly not be in an environment less pleasant and more hostile than an actual workplace.  My father, a retired former editor for Pearson National Evaluation Systems (a textbook firm) would never have put up with a workplace environment this toxic or hostile, even if paid.

Unless the sole mission of wikipedia is to provide training data for AI, the foundation will probably regret failing to heed this advice, as I am going to assume this email will be ultimately read and shrugged off like so many others not from donors.  I was a donor before I contributed, but you may find soon that I am neither.  You will never know what articles and high quality regional photographs will be forever absent from commons and the other wiki sites.

Now multiply that by thousands of lost editors and millions of lost edits and uploads for non-copyright reasons and you will understand the true cost of administration laissez faire that has thrived for too long at this organization.

But I guess none of that counts for squat if the donations keep pouring in, as they will until somebody clones the entire site and builds a site with monetized, copyrighted editing.

If you want to keep me around after my newspapers.com membership expires next year you will promote me to unpaid administrative status (which I will not use but will shield me from bs like this) and examine the moderator incentive structure and consider experimenting with paid moderation.

Saludos Cordiales,

User:Alexbarbershop ~2026-16131-27 (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Alexbarbershop is not blocked, and was never blocked on Commons. Yann (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Alexbarbershop (talk · contribs) is blocked in Commons temporarily, but edits from temporary accounts cannot be used as unblock request. You must log in and request in your user talkpage. Taivo (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Alexbarbershop: I've added a block notice to your talk page, mainly to give you a clear place to appeal your block. I would point out that the block was for incorrect licensing, which you do not even mention above.

The block is not particularly long, it only has a week to go. I personally would recommend that you just wait it out and do other things right now, because it's probably not worth the hassle to try to get it lifted, but that is, of course, your choice. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks for adding the block notice, that was my mistake.

My block was for repeated use of incorrect licenses and no/poor categorization after multiple warnings. For example, his most recent uploads (prior to corrects by myself and others):

• File:Conway Electric Trolley at Dewolfe Shoe Factory on July 4th.jpg: License not valid in the US, generic url source (where I am unable to find the file), overly broad categories ("Trolleys" and "Trams") with no specific categories, and author and date claims with no source
• File:Former Ukiah Depot Ukiah CA.jpg: Overly broad category ("Depots") with no specific categories, false claim in description (there are no plans to bring SMART service to Ukiah)
• File:Conway Electric Street Railway Stock.png: Obviously false date that does not match the source, license not valid in the US, overly broad category ("Stock") with no specific categories
• File:Reading Line Bee Line Locomotive with Norfolk Southern East Deerfield MA.jpg: Overly broad category with no specific categories, description that misses a key fact
• File:Location of the South Deerfield Boston & Maine Depot.jpg: No categories
• File:Ware Trol.png: Reupload of file deleted at DR. Three invalid licenses (PD-US-expired lacking evidence, PD-old-70 not valid for US works, PD-US-unpublished not valid for post-1906 works), uselessly vague source, false claim in description (we have another photo of the same system), overly vague category ("Trolleys"), missing the actual category for the system
• File:Boott Cotton Mills by JL Parker (NPS).jpg: Overly vague category ("National parks"), completely invalid category (Category:US National Park Road), attribution to a person not listed at the source and whose existence I am unable to verify

This is a combination of basic issues that should not require multiple warnings, plus a concerning pattern of claims that seem to have been simply made up. (That pattern is also evident on enwiki, where his recent creation of en:Conway Electric Street Railway included several false and unverifiable claims.) Given the multiple warnings I left, I don't think a two-week block is overly punitive. The only uploads by Alexbarbershop that I've deleted myself have been inappropriate AI upscales of existing files, duplicates (redirected), and the reupload of the above file, all of which are routine administrative tasks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

CarolaGarella

• User: CarolaGarella (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Detto-Mariano-in-studio-2002.jpg after final warning for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, one more file deleted. Yann (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Socking: User:Dad-wikimasters

I suspect User:Dad-wikimasters2003 may be a sockpuppet of User:Dad-wikimasters. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dad-wikimasters/Archive.

These accounts are only potentially the same individual as User:KostyaMasterpiece, despite the similarity in behavior on the English Wikipedia (another link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KostyaMasterpiece). The English Wikipedia account creation dates are the following:

• In mid 2021, KostyaMasterpiece was created
• In early to mid 2022, socking starts by KostyaMasterpiece
• In late 2023, Dad-wikimasters was created
• In late 2024, User:Kostya-Artist2005 was created
• In late 2025, Dad-wikimasters2003 was created

Besides this, on Commons only, User:Dad-wikimasters2003 has uploaded text to speech recordings, copyvios, tried to create someone else's userpage, and engaged in potential harassment ⁅1⁆ ⁅2⁆ ⁅3⁆ ⁅4⁆. - Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 23:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

- Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 02:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done An English Wikipedia sock block is enough for me to block as a sock here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

And should File:Russian Word Pronunciation is Malyy.oga (which I replaced with File:Ru-малый.ogg) also be deleted? - Bᴏᴅʜı ***** Hᴀᴙᴩ** 21:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Now that it's no longer in use, yes. Done. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Incall again

Incall (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Previous request: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_120#User:Incall. A 'hat collector', happily accepting extended rights granted to him by the administrators, but repeatedly demonstrating a lack of understanding of the copyright principles, which have been pointed out to him. Used to struggle with understanding YouTube licensing, demonstrated extremely poor English proficiency, waged an edit war, removing speedy deletion templates (here), and made unfounded accusations of vandalism (here). Repeatedly uploaded files with inconsistent PD rationale, grounding his suggestions on the life terms of unknown authors. Time goes by, the user has received now image reviewer rights, but how does he demonstrate his supposed skills? Okay, he still goes on with the same false PD rationale in his own uploads (here), but let's see how he reviews the licenses of other users' ones? Example: the map under review clearly is under cc-zero as per it's source, but our reviewer is unstoppable: first, he tags the file for the speedy deletion, then, despite the obvious objections of the uploader, leaves a so-called "last warning" on the uploader's talk page and continues to accuse him of false licensing. I suggest that all administrators who granted extended rights to an inexperienced and at the same time aggressive user so hastily, now evaluate the benefit or harm to Commons from this user having these rights. Komarof (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I won’t even comment on this. First you say that my English is bad, then you bring up a topic that was archived a year ago, and then you present only one new accusation. So I want to know: what exactly do you want from me? (A brief answer without unnecessary accusations) 😐 Incall ^talk 10:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Можно было поговорить изначально, просто на моей странице обсуждения. Больше я не буду участвовать в данном диалоге. Incall ^talk 10:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Nina07011960

• User: Nina07011960 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading of ten more files after four blocks for doing so per Special:Diff/308787196/1181750459. The user appears to be unwilling to follow (or incapable of following) copyright law.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done I don't see any contributions by this user, not even deleted contributions, in the last 5 years. The diff you indicate shows two warnings, one from 2018, the other recent. Being recently given a warning message about very old uploads (which is all that your diff shows) is not normally a reason to block an account. - Jmabel ! talk 01:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/~2026-16585-73

• ~2026-16585-73 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) - Personal attack page and vandalism.

~2026-16676-12 (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

What copy wikipedia Administrators copy user only and vandalism Copy Wikipedia Administrators name vandalism 1, Wikipedia Administrators name vandalism 2 and Copy Wikipedia Administrators name vandalism 3, please click blocked global lock at personal attack page and vandalism, thank you. ~2026-16676-12 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Already done globally locked. - Jmabel ! talk 05:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Also indef-blocked ~2026-16692-60 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions), same story. - Jmabel ! talk 05:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Fortunato2601

• User: Fortunato2601 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klebs1 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The account in question is a dummy account of a user banned (Romaburuno) by ptwiki () for fakery and LTA (Long Term Access), as well as uploading images with inappropriate licenses to this project. Klebs1 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Klebs1: Romaburuno never logged in here, where LTA means Long Term Abuser.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted speedily most uploads as copyright violations. Currently that's enough. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@User:Komarof

This user made mass DR nomination of files what uploaded by @User:Vahan Kochar, claiming what these are not "own works", due to photo from Andranik and Vahan Kochar's collection template.
There's one problem: Vahan Kochar is copyright holder and uploader of this photos on commons, so he can claim photos as a own works and put that template on the files. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Assuming that Vahan Kochar is who he claims to be, I suggest that at least some of the images nominated for deletion might not be own work because they are way too old for that, for example File:Hagop SEMERDJIAN Studio PHEBUS Paris 1922 à 1949 ETSEV.tif, even though they might be his father's work. I cannot understand why you report Komarof instead of discussing this issue elsewhere, e.g. in the DRs or on Komarof's personal talk page, where you should have notified the user about this report. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Vahan Kochar inherited copyrights of them by his father, so only father's photos cannot be own works. But instead of just fixing incorrect claiming Komarof just want delete them, so he should be warned for DR misusing. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Robert Flogaus-Faust: You cannot, but I can. This appears to be a kind of retaliation request after my assessment of the numerous mostly meaningless comments that this inexperienced user tries to leave under almost every nomination I start. E.g., just look at this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Արա Վրույր.tif: Not to mention this is clearly a scanned clipping from some publication, this user is trying to claim that this photograph was taken by a person who was born a year after the death of the person depicted. Now, regarding the Vahan Kochar's uploads, I carefully examined all the descriptions he provided when uploading files. There are three description options. Here they are: Author:Andranik Kochar, Author:Vahan Kochar, and this one: photo from Andranik and Vahan Kochar's collection. Moreover, in the titles of some photos he even honestly indicated the real author, as here: Studio PHEBUS Paris. From these I conclude that Mr. Kochar, without wanting to deceive anyone, simply decided that he had the right to publish images taken by other photographers, on the grounds that copies of them were stored in his collection. I have nominated for deletion only these images from the third group (and not all of them, but the most questionable ones). That's it. Komarof (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Komarof you should also see the files' history: on this one tag what photographer is Andranik Kochar was added upon image upload.

On another one same situation as on above image and Studio PHEBUS looks to be place where depicted person was worked, not an actual copyright owner. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding a certain group of images to Category:Photographs by Andranik Kochar does not qualify as a claim of authorship. For example, Mr. Vahan Kochar added to this same category the following files: File:Հովհաննես Քյուրքչյանց.jpg, File:Արամ Վրույր.tif. These people died in 1903 and 1924, while Mr. Andranik Kochar was born in 1919. Their descriptions, in turn, are explicit: photo from Andranik and Vahan Kochar's collection. Komarof (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Files with suspicious claim of authorship in that category are minority, you should just fix incorrect claim instead of attempting delete various others. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@SomeFancyUsername: Did you not see "Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this." above? I notified them for you, this time.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Josiah Cosgrove

This user's talk page shows that they have been persistently uploading copyrighted files, which have all been deleted, for several months now. They were apparently warned about this as far back as September of last year, and do not show any signs of stopping. SilviaASH (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

This was after Ziv final warned them in September.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user for a week. Copyvios are deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Tenam2

Hello, as I can see in my watchlist, Tenam2 is asking for renaming in French a lot of files in Italian which don't need to be renamed, because Aosta Valley is an Italian region where both Italian and French are the official languages. All the files concern the Aosta Valley area. He has a long history on the Italian wikipedia of pushing French language instead of Italian. He was already been warned to not change names of my files (and others' ones) without reason (1, 2); in response to my request, he asked for changes to even more files than usual. I don't think it is a constructive way of contribute.

What is really wired is also that he seems follow my files, following edits of user:Arbalete and edit them just after Arbalete. With Arbalete, I'm discussing in those days about categories he is creating. After my disagreement with Arbalete —whom I had also asked not to change the names of my files — Tenam2 began deliberately requesting the changing of the names of my files. The situation is very unpleasant for me; I feel like I'm targeted. Una tantum (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk with Tenam2: User_talk:Tenam2#Rinomina_file_POV

Talks with Arbalete: User_talk:Arbalete#Rinomina_file and User_talk:Arbalete#Category:Nus_train_station_-_Station_building. Una tantum (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to clarify the situation from my point of view, because two distinct and separate actions are being conflated.

The files I renamed on 17 March were renamed only as translations (Italian > French). At that time, I understood, based on an existing discussion that this was allowed. After that point, I did not touch those files again.

The files I renamed afterwards, i.e. today, were not renamed as translations, but to improve clarity and consistency of file names, in particularr e.g. providing with a clearer identification of subject, place, and viewpoint, harmonisation according to a descriptive and neutral naming convention.

This is exactly what I explained on my user talk page: "stazione di Verrès" is ambiguous and far less clear to me than "Verrès (AO) - gare ferroviaire - vue côté rue", since it specifies the province (AO = Aosta Valley, Verrès being not a major city at all and is not known outside this region) in which Verrès is located, the type of building ("stazione" may not be a train station in Italian) and the side the photo was taken from. This is the sole reason why I renamed that file. In one case I even left "abc1", which is an extension I read on other discussions that Una tantum prefers to keep in his/her file names, even if I don't know whether this is allowed in file names.

Other examples: this file name has a typo (Rhemes ND > Rhêmes-Notre-Dame), and this file name is completely useless, but my renaming proposals were bulk deleted.

These renames were content-neutral, descriptive, and intended solely to improve the nomenclature, not to promote any language over another.

This is not a personal attack. It is purely coincidental that the files concerned belong to the same author: they were renamed because their names were unclear or non-descriptive, not because of who had uploaded them.

I am not following any user. I work on Aosta Valley related content, and we're familiar with this user.

Aosta Valley is a region where Italian and French are both official languages on an equal legal footing. Renaming files in French for places and subjects located in that region aiming to improve their names is therefore legitimate and neutral, and fully consistent with local toponymy and official usage. About my supposed "long history on the Italian wikipedia of pushing French language instead of Italian", examples should be cited, elsewhere this remains an empty accusation, apart from being totally vague.

If there is disagreement on a specific rename, I'm open to discussing it calmly and on a case-by-case basis. However, presenting this work as harassment or targeting is IMO a misunderstanding of both my actions and my intentions.

Thank you. Tenam2 (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Is this normal? A common, clear and harmonized naming convention should be followed and promoted. "Nus (AO) - maison communale" (in French) or "Nus (AO) - municipio" (in Italian) correspond to such criteria, but "municipio di Nus abc2" is less clear imho. Files on wikimedia common are common, we're not on anyone's private photo archive. --Tenam2 (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

"stazione di Verrès" is ambiguous and far less clear to me than "Verrès (AO) - gare ferroviaire - vue côté rue" — why did you translate the file name when all you wanted to do was to have a clearer identification of the subject?

We also don't require file names to be perfect; it's fine if the file name is "good enough". From that point of view "stazione di Verrè" is a pretty clear file name. I for one wouldn't have a clue what the "AO" is supposed to mean in the file name you chose.

and this file name is completely useless — how is this file name "useless"? The file shows the Donnas power plant and the file name translates literally to "hydroelectric company Donnas" (Sied Donnas = Società Idroelettrica di Donnas (SIED)). How is that useless? Why would it be OK for you to use abbreviations like "AO" but not for them to use abbreviations like "Sied"?

Renaming files in French for places and subjects located in that region aiming to improve their names is therefore legitimate and neutral — renaming files to translate the file names is explicitly against the renaming policy, see COM:FRNOT.

Is this normal? We usually honor the file names an uploader chooses, unless the file name qualifies for one of the renaming criteria listed at COM:FNC. And regarding the criterion on harmonizing, beware that a file can be in several categories and harmonizing it according to the file naming scheme in one category might disharmonize its file name in another category's naming scheme. Furthermore, it could disharmonize the file name from the uploader's other uploads (e.g. I like to include dates in my file names, but your chosen file naming scheme for above category would disrupt my file naming scheme because your suggestion does not include a date). Nakonana (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for the detailed explanations. You helped me understand where my interpretation was wrong, and I appreciate the time taken to point to the relevant policies.

I would however like to clarify a few points, both factually and in terms of intent:

• What I find unfortunate is that this could not have been explained by Una tantum, calmly and with policy references (as Nakoana has done here), before opening an ANI. I did not engage in any edit war, I did not revert any file, and I acted according to two different criteria which I explained trensparently on my talk page. I also received accusations (language pushing, targeting) with no proof. Had wikimedia policy been cited clearly at the outset, the situation would most likely not have escalated, specially because with Una tantum we are familiar and even had the chance to meet in real life and exchange about our common passion as wikipedians.
• I clearly understood and accepted that translating file names is not allowed, even in a bilingual or officially multilingual region, and after the first objection was raised on my talk page I stopped translating file names. My mistake was to assume that using French to make names clearer from my perspective was acceptable, given that French is an official language in the Aosta Valley and that I am personally more precise in French. That assumption was incorrect under wikimedia policy and I acknowledge it.
• Regarding Sied Donnas: while I now accept that this may be "good enough" as you say (though what is the criteria?) for some users, I still find it problematic from clarity that understanding it requires external knowledge (that me e.g. as a native Aosta Valley person did not have at all) or a Google search especially when the expansion ("Società Idroelettrica di Donnas") is not mentioned anywhere on the file page itself if I'm not mistaken. That said I understand now that Commons does not require file names to be maximally explicit, only "good enough", and that uploader conventions deserve deference, though this lack of clear naming criteria is a bit weird to me and would like to know your opinion (and of more users involved).
• about the choice to add "(AO)", it was based on a prior discussion with Arbalete (link already provided), which led me to believe that adding the provincial abbreviation was acceptable.
• To ensure I have correctly understood the rules and to avoid any future ANI: this rename does infringe Commons rules? Please confirm that this understanding is correct.
• I want to reiterate clearly: I did not target any uploader. The files happened to be by the same author, most probably because they concern the same geographic area I work on. I have no aim of pushing French instead of Italian. I have long contributed in multilingual contexts, including Italian Wikipedia since approximately 10 years. once again myy actions were guided by what I mistakenly believed to be acceptable harmonisation and clarification practices.
• I have learned from this exchange. My intention is that this clarification may also be useful for others working on Aosta Valley related content, like @Arbalete and @Pilaz, where bilingualism can easily lead to misunderstandings about what is locally legitimate versus what is globally allowed on Wikimedia Commons.

Tenam2 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The move at was probably ill-advised, especially with no rationale stated.

For what it's worth, stability of individual filenames has a high value on Commons, so one rule of thumb is "unless there's a pretty serious problem with it, or it's a very recent upload, leave the filename alone." - Jmabel ! talk 23:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Xemsomenh

• User: Xemsomenh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reason:Uploading multiple files that are potentially against the policy. MinhVN1863 (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

MinhVN1863. Please provide diffs for evidence - LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

MinhVN1863 - I've notified the user for you. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@MinhVN1863, @LuvsMG481: I indefinitely blocked Xemsomenh and deleted all of their uploads.  Done. Kadı Message 12:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

User: Midnightazu

• Midnightazu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

New user has uploaded a dozen or so school and sports logos, almost all of which are complex enough to qualify for copyright protection. They have been labelled CC-BY-4.0, which is very unlikely to be correct. I started to tag them for SD/F1, but realised that it's a bit bitey and harrassy to swamp them with lots of copyvio notices; it's also a waste of everybody's time as I think the logos are going to need mass deletion anyway. • a frantic turtle 🐢 13:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Similar case with this file, it is licenced under CC-BY-SA 3.0 but on the website it says copyrighted. This does not fall into the category of SD/F1 but it should be checked if user tagged as own work, if he did change it to the URL of the school. I'm not too much of an expert but I think logos from memory are ineligible for copyright if they serve simple design, and school logos may be copyrighted but if we delete them, then we should delete logos like Scotch College one. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

A Frantic Turtle. You are meant to notify the user. I've done it for you --LuvsMG481 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• a frantic turtle 🐢 14:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems the discussed account has been changed to Renamed user 5818f39ac3b3aa558df5c2ae9ad1fd0d (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Trinhnguyen1

Trinhnguyen1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user – Only used for advertising, created a page about a non-notable writer on viwiki, uploaded multiple files probably just to advertise the book. MinhVN1863 (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user and deleted most of his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Zelinschi Angela

Zelinschi Angela (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Persistent copyvio. Gikü (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

 Comment One more warning, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zelinschi Angela. Yann (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate! Gikü (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

6D still uploading without properly categorizing

6D (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Digging up a 3-month old discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_126#User:6D_bulk_uploading_Flickr_accounts:

I took a quick look at their recent uploads (as I very frequently run into uncategorized airplane photos uploaded by them from late 2025), and with some exceptions they mostly still aren't properly categorizing what they uploaded.

• To their credit, they have been doing the bare minimum categorization of aircraft by adding the aircraft registration for aircraft uploads, such as File:Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner (55132357718).jpg.
• However, other recent uploads (largely of ground vehicles) have been uploaded without categories (other than author categories like "Photographs by photographer X" which are not particularly useful), and either remain uncategorized or were categorized by other people:
  • File:BR 1462 Desiro HC EMU (55128588179).jpg from last week and File:Suzuki Every (55128099854).jpg are uncategorized except for the author category Category:Photographs by Samson Ng.
  • Their most recent several uploads as of this post, such as File:Liebherr 125 EC-B 6 (55154131612).jpg and various uploads of vehicles (such as File:Renault 4 (55155037296).jpg), were categorized by another user with no categorization done by 6D themselves other than an author category, despite the vehicle name being in the filename .
    • The was a specific complaint on December 3, 2025 in the archived ANU discussion at the top that 6D was not categorizing vehicles on images of vehicles despite the vehicle name obviously being in the filename. This is still happening on their most recent uploads. Earlier in March, the user that categorized their recent uploads left a message on their talk page encouraging them to categorize their uploads themselves. 2 weeks later, that talk page post still has no response from 6D. The list of files that user encouraged them to categorize are either still uncategorized or were categorized by other users, despite every one of those files describing their subject in their filenames.

4300streetcar (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi 6D here, I am really sorry for forgetting to categorise the land vehicle images, next time I will categorise the images before updoading. 6D (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

WIKI COMMONS IMAGE REMOVED 3-22-2026

MY HEADSHOT WAS REMOVED FOR A NON EXISTING COPYRIGHT, A artists photo is essential for his livelihood, this image was not the property of a television network or outside agency as indicated in the take down notice ! Taf79444g (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Above referenced File:MARC ANTOINE 1970s TV ENTERTAINER.PNG Taf79444g (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Whoever is the copyright holder, we need a permission for a free license from them. And shouting. Yann (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Taf79444g: There has never been a File:MARC ANTOINE 1970s TV ENTERTAINER.PNG. I presume this is about File:MARC ANTOINE 1970s TV ENTERTAINER.png. You credited the source as Taft Broadcasting 1974, and claimed yourself to be the author of the photo. Are you the photographer, the person depicted, or do you have some other relation to this photo? - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

That’s my husband in the photo, it’s 56 years ago ! A headshot that was that used over the years taken by his first wife ! Taf79444g (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

If I'm reading correctly, your husband's first wife is the photographer (the person behind the camera), is that correct or not? HyperAnd [talk] 05:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Taf79444g: And, if so, is she still alive? - Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Joana machado2021

Joana machado2021 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Uploading copyright violations after previous block. Many of their uploads since 2023 are also untagged copyvios. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 12:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 months. Most files either deleted, or Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Joana machado2021. Yann (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Tanamiku39

• Tanamiku39 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Persistently uploading the same unfree portrait and ignoring any talks by clearing own talk page. Netora (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 2 weeks, file deleted. Yann (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Admin Polarlys overrides DR outcomes with their opinion

• Respecting due process matters
• Respecting Commons policies matters

Polarlys (talk · contribs) does not follow procedures of Commons deletion requests and overrides it with their strong subjective personal POV.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rabuso - ChatGPT.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vedoiro - ChatGPT.png – 3 Keep votes/argumentations, no Delete vote/argumentations
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:T'q'ashmapa.svg – 3 Keep votes/argumentations and 1 (Weak) Delete
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fée des dents.png – 2 Keep votes/argumentations, no Delete vote/argumentations

Please see COM:NOTCENSORED and COM:DR. Commons is not taking stances on contemporary culture wars in some countries or subject to whatever happens to be the strong opinion of some subgroup or admin. There are far more offensive files kept on Commons such as videos of sexual intercourse, depictions of Muhammad, photos of fetishes, videos of people dying, photos of dead people, and much more. There is no reason for why policies and established processes are not applicable anymore because some users feel strongly about one particular topic such as the production method of illustrations. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, in all above listed cases, the admin provided a rationale and all DRs ran over 1 week. --Túrelio (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

1. If they provided rationale that would change nothing as it pertains to this case. 2. they wrote per nomination, Commons:AI-generated_media#Are_AI-generated_media_within_the_Commons_project_scope? and the nomination was a mere expression of (subjective and contested) en:WP:IDONTLIKEIT, namely Unused AI slop. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: I believe that these DRs were subject to w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy (I don't think there is a "not democracy" policy on Commons, but this is the closest thing I found)

From what I can see, all the DRs consist of Dronebogus calling the files AI slop, OP calling them something to the effect of "good quality and illustrates the subject well" (quote copy-pasted from Fée des dents), and Nesnad making personal attacks against Dronebogus Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Personal attack as in accusing Dronebogus of having a "vendetta" against AI generation Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Nesnad did not make a personal attack. It may not be a good or sufficient argument to keep but it's not a personal "attack" and it's probably relevant to the DR if the user nominates lots of files based on their production method which they hate or dislike a great deal.

OP has not provided a valid rationale and that these are of good quality and illustrate the subject well in a realistic educational way (or with potential for educational use) are good rational arguments to keep the file. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Same. Admins don’t have to implement the raw numeric “consensus” and are right to treat AI files in general more harshly simply because of the problems inherent with AI and the fact that they’re easily replaced. Dronebogus (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

They're not "easily replaced" and that's not a "fact" but your personal opinion. Learn to distinguish between the two. Indeed admins, should look at the arguments users made and calling sth "AI slop" is a mere IDONTLIKE it personal subjective opinion and not a good argument, actually not even an argument at all, especially when the file is of good quality and without any better alternative with free license. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The only users who aggressively defend these files are you and the uploaders. Most admins and regular commons users don’t seem to support AI slop. Dronebogus (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

+1   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not "aggressively" defending the files. I voted delete on a great number of AI-related files and unlike you not just made a short invalid IDONTLIKEIT comment calling sth with a derogatory term, I gave a rational explanation for why to keep these useful files which remained unrefuted. It's not slop. I shouldn't need to repeat things here. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Polarlys is right. We do not need these AI-generated files. Yann (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

He is not. Due process matters. Policies matter. Opinions of you and Polarlys are your opinions.

Whether we "need" the files is not the subject of DRs, it's whether we should have the files. We benefit from these files as they were of good quality and illustrated the subject well with no better free-licensed illustration available. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Some people also think we do not need unused sexually explicit videos and images or depictions of Muhammad. We have the process of DR for the community to decide, not authoritarian top-down admin decision-making based on whatever happens to be their opinion. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Currently, Commons policies state that these are out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

They do not. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

COM:EDUSE may be more specific than COM:OOS... I need to sleep now Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

COM:EDUSE was the reason to keep the file. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The nominator raised a subject to discuss ("Usused AI slop", which actually means "image out of scope"), you talked against that ("good quality and useful"). But you failed to convince the relevant person: the admin closing the DR, who then deleted based upon our SCOPE rules. It's not authoritarian, it was a battle of arguments, and yours did not prevail. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the DRs and did not find the decisions faulty. Isderion (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I also think these closing decisions are all correct, based on our policies and guidelines. GPSLeo (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Basically impossible to assess if you can't even see the respective files. The only point put forward was en:WP:IDONTLIKEIT with all participating users in the DR opposing deletion with valid rationales. You did not say why you think it's not faulty.

• If people wonder wonder what makes people lose trust in institutions, people, processes, and rules THIS is exactly what it is. Rules for the common people; authoritarian opinion-enforcement if I have a strong opinion because I or my opinion is special and I believe in that opinion so strongly (such as people having very strong opinion Muhammad shall not be depicted and that we do not "need" such images and that their case is some way 'special').

based on our policies and guidelines see COM:EDUSE and COM:NOTCENSORED as well as especially Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions. But you failed to convince the relevant person: the admin closing the DR New to me that DRs are merely a place meant for convincing a certain/random admin. It's community decision-making based on arguments oriented by a) consensus decision-making and b) rational deliberation where people make and/or address points. I've explained in the DR why the image is educationally useful and should be kept. If the admin wants to participate in the DR, they can. Admins so far were not established to close DRs with whatever happens to be their arbitrary subjective opinion. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

There are parallel conversations here. One is whether these files should have been deleted. I do not personally care about that. What I care about is the other one: that administrators' role in closing discussions is weighing policy- and guideline-based arguments and deciding which was strongest. The closing summary is where that is documented. Similar to the hollow "per discussion" closing summary, which manages to say nothing, it is not appropriate to just say "per nomination" when the nomination does not put forth anything resembling a policy- or guideline-based argument. If Polarlys deleted them according to COM:AI, say that. This is a common shortcoming of DR closures that leads to an unnecessary amount of conflict and confusion when closers could just take a second extra to link to the policy/guideline. A nomination statement comprising nothing other than "AI slop" might as well say "it sucks", and isn't anything to "per". — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand some parts of your criticism. The closing admin mentioned that the deletions were according to Commons:AI-generated_media#Are_AI-generated_media_within_the_Commons_project_scope?. So these were very clearly deletions according to COM:AI. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I have trouble understanding your point. Are you saying linking to a policy pages means one can delete or keep as one likes? That page section says Just because an AI image is interesting, pretty, or looks like a work of art, that doesn't mean that it is necessarily within the scope of Commons. While some AI-generated media fall within our scope, media that lack a realistic educational use may be nominated for deletion. -> it was nominated and participants found it to have realistic educational use. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: Your "good quality and useful." in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vedoiro - ChatGPT.png is at least as crappy as (and certainly way more bland / nondescript than) the rationale "Unused AI slop" from Dronebogus. Specifically, you failed to demonstrated in what and where a good quality could lie and how this image may be useful. The first person who made a solid foundation for an argument was Polarlys, as he rationalised the interjections with Commons:AI-generated media#Are AI-generated media within the Commons project scope? - and the deletion is certainly not unfounded. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It was not very good but I saw little need to explain further given that nobody called for deletion and would have explained further. In any case, I meant good quality in that the image looks good when it comes to the end-result. Additionally, it didn't have substantial misgeneration issues or showed sth that was not intended in terms of what was meant to be depicted. I meant useful in the sense that it illustrates and visualizes the subject which is somewhat self-explanatory but could be more detailed. I don't think there are other free-licensed illustrations or visualizations of the subject and even if having a high-res one is also useful. In any case, there is no need to delete it but realistic usefulness where the deletion was unfounded since "Unused" is not a valid deletion rationale and "AI slop" is a mere IDONTLIKEIT derogatory term, maybe even somewhat uncivil, that represents an expression of unexplained subjective opinion that users objected to and disagreed with. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand some parts of your criticism. The closing admin mentioned - *facepalm* My apologies. I had several DRs open and conflated the nomination of these with the closing statement of another. "per nomination" is not great when the nomination is "AI slop" is not great, but citing the guideline is what's important. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

These deletions are consistent with Commons policies, DRs are not votes and we generally do not keep personal art. These are essentially personal art, although good quality personal art and as such as not in scope. Due process has been respected in that a DR occured. I find nothing wrong with Polarlys's deletions. Abzeronow (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. DRs are not votes. Bedivere (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Exactly: DRs are not votes. See my full comment which isn't just about votes and where it mentions these calls it votes/argumentations to make it clearer that this part isn't about headcounts either. Also see my comment directly before your two comments that addresses this misunderstanding of what I was saying here.

DRs are not votes see above consistent with Commons policies they seem inconsistent with COM:EDUSE and COM:NOTCENSORED as well as Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions e.g. since the realistic educational use-case was clear (good quality illustrations of the intended subject, often the only thereof) and we generally do not keep personal art. These are essentially personal art, although good quality personal art and as such as not in scope they are not "personal" art and even if they were, what you said is plain wrong and not part of any policy and just a common misconception. Lots of all kinds of art is in the tens of thousands files in Category:Art and additionally, these aren't more art than they were illustrations. They were artistic illustrations which are useful for all sorts of things even if not in use on a Wikipedia. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: you seem to be nearly alone in believing that these have realistic educational use. No one is saying they are not good for what they are, but they are saying that what they are is not in Commons scope. Why are you so determined to have them on this particular site, rather than somewhere they would be welcome? - Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: You know, you’ve made me realize something I hadn’t really understood until now: it’s okay to break with consensus, but when you are the only person in a discussion breaking with consensus your dissent simply becomes disrupting the process to make a w:wp:point. I’ve done this on Meta with new project proposals. I still think the projects in question shouldn’t have been approved and will ultimately still prove mostly useless in the long run, but there’s no sense pushing against a freight train. The freight train won’t stop and you’ll just get killed in the process. Dronebogus (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion here. All files were deleted after the required duration of the deletion request and with reference to an official Commons guideline. None of the files were in use. --Polarlys (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive/Frivolous deletion nominations by User:Chandhanaprasanna900

Chandhanaprasanna900 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
I am a new contributor and I am being targeted by User:Chandhanaprasanna900 with frivolous deletion nominations. This user is copy-pasting the exact same false reason ("Because it is a selfie... totally blurry, nonsense") for multiple high-quality, valid photos of monuments and infrastructure that are clearly not selfies. Examples include: * File:Denkmal - Heinrich Göbel (55804).jpg (A monument, not a selfie) * File:Canal view from Auf der Horst bridge (51341).jpg (A cargo barge, not a selfie) The user appears to be doing this to other contributors as well. This behaviour is discouraging and disruptive to the project. I request that these nominations be reviewed and the user be warned. Badhan.kv (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: the reported user has been blocked on enwiki for not being here to build an encyclopedia and for making disruptive unblock requests. Nakonana (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Now the user is blocked for 2 weeks. Isn't it enough? Taivo (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done blocked for 2 weeks from namespace File by Achim55. Let's see if it's enough. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:11, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Unknown Chandhanaprasanna900 (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

IIRC, the deletion rationales you're seeing here ("because it is a selfie, totally blurry, etc") are a feature of the Commons mobile app. That feature has been a long-term nuisance on Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Duplicate accounts uploading duplicate images

• IslamicDefender78692 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• SunniDefender78692 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I don't know if this is just a silly competence issue or deliberate behaviour (e.g. from an earlier blocked editor), but these two accounts are obviously the same person and the only edits by both of them so far have been to upload two identical images, of which the second one has an unnecessary watermark: , . Potentially complicating issue is the fact that the exact same image appeared in another non-Wiki web page () posted on the same day as the first upload (25 March), with no attribution linking either one to the other, so I can't tell if this may even be a copyvio.

Maybe someone with better investigation skills can judge what's going with these images and the dual accounts? Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Are these kind of usernames even allowed? --Trade (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think so (the offensive usernames in COM:IU) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

PS: I should also mention that an anonymous editor is also edit-warring on the English Wiki to add these images to a couple of articles so far, see here and here, which further adds to the fishiness. R Prazeres (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to keep these photos and make a collage out of them to illustrate AI photo editing hallucination. But they are definitely a copyright violation. I will block the second account and warn the first one. GPSLeo (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Martín Andariego

• User: Martín Andariego (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning for doing so, and adding incomplete deletion requests despite warnings for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I don't see copyright violations uploaded after the last warning on 1 January 2026. Yann (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Yann: Sorry, the new notifications were for old uploads.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Bruh skibidi dop dop yes yes (obvious sock)

• User: Bruh skibidi dop dop yes yes (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• An obvious sock of Trantrongnam~conmonswiki (aka Skibididopdop~commonswiki). Please see the old SPI (especially, the contributions of VNM_EST.1976). M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton: Have you considered adding to that case ({{subst:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample}} at the top)?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

   Done. M.Bitton (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations by User:Soumava2002

Soumava2002 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User has been repeatedly uploading non-free logos and copyrighted images.

Despite multiple warnings (including a final warning), the user continues to: - Upload non-free logos as own work - Re-upload previously deleted content (G4) - Ignore copyright policy

No response has been made on their talk page.

This appears to be a pattern of persistent copyright violations.

Requesting admin attention. JaydenChao (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@JaydenChao: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above. I also warned them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 months (2nd block). All copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Uploads by Fabe56

Fabe56 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I happened upon a very large number of uploads by Fabe56, and became intrigued. I was looking at File:05Puffing Billy Novem 2011 (6317817690).jpg, and, setting the date aside, saw it as a minor child privacy issue, so dug further. In November 2011 that child was circa six years old. Today, at circa 20, that exact problem has evaporated. Even at date of upload at circa 18, that problem was borderline. I hasten to say that Fabe56 is very unlikely to be the person who uploaded the picture to Flickr. This is not about child privacy as you will see when you read on.

I investigated other files uploaded by Fabe56. I found that they seem to have started to acquire files from Flickr in 2023 in bulk. They use #flickr2commons. An example is File:Bored (53152633849).jpg by a different Flickr contributor from the prior file. Scanning through a subset of their uploads I found many different files on many different topics, with the issues including:

• The great majority of the files are not used anywhere (certainly those I have sample checked)
• I could find none actually created as originals by Fabe56
• They are uploaded from properly licenced files contributed to Flickr by multiple uploaders
• Many have filenames that have no value in identifying then, likely scraped uncritically from Flickr with those names
• Some are placed in categories. One example is Category:While42 SF No 10 which appear to have no value (again created by Fabe56), a subcat of a hierarchy created in isolation, the top level cat being Category:While42. http://while42.org may be the organisation associated with this, but what use is this to Commons? I was led down this rabbit hole by File:DSC 7555 (13052613053).jpg. This is but one such rabbit hole
• I do not believe the files, almost certainly the great majority of the huge number, meet Commons:Project scope; I suggest that there is no educational value

I consulted Túrelio as an experienced admin here, at User talk:Túrelio § An enormous cache of personal pictures and received the advice that has led me here.

In this diff I asked Fabe56 "Your activity is immense. I see you have been here a long time, long enough to amass a significant picture archive. I am curious so have a question for you. How are the great majority of the files congruent with COM:SCOPE, please?" so far without reply, though they have been active since I asked the question.

My feeling is that Fabe56's uploads have been to create an enormous hoard of pictures for personal use without the ability to justify them against our project scope. With, currently, 202,108 uploads performed by Fabe56 this is well beyond my ability to even consider handling. Thus I am here to alert those who may have a toolkit to look at this and to require a rationale from Fabe56 for this enormous project they have been working on. I believe AN/U will get an answer even if I will not, and I know that admins here will know how to handle this. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

How does the huge number of files get sorted out?

I see two options, assuming lack of engagement:

1. We ignore them. 'disk space is cheap'(!)
2. We start quietly nominating batches for deletion.

Thoughts would be appreciated. Is there an admin action that can be implemented to handle the obvious candidates unilaterally without a DR, for example? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully Fabe56 will do something. Otherwise, an indefinite block should be sent. Yann (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed! I am assuming worst case, though. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Why would you assume that when someone clearly stated that they have seen Fabe56 curating their uploads? Nakonana (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I think a plan needs to be formulated. They have been absent from Commons since 29 January and everywhere else since 30 January 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

They remain absent 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 05:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

Sorry, I didn't have access to the Internet. I will try to revert all my contributions to Wikimedia Commons. It will take time for sure, but it seems to be the best solution, as I don't want to offend anyone.

I personnaly really regret that collaboration is not really an integral part of this project, but that fine no worries ;-)

Sorry again. Fabe56 (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Fabe56 Collaboration is a two way street. You are meant to act collegially with uploads, and not simply blast them here uncritically. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Fabe56 On 18 February you said I will try to revert all my contributions to Wikimedia Commons. It will take time for sure, but it seems to be the best solution, as I don't want to offend anyone., however, you have edited here since that time - Special:Contributions/Fabe56 - and I cannot see any indication that you have started the process of the massive clear up. Instead it seems you are carrying on almost as though nothing is happening, except that you are blocked from uploading files.

With precision, please, what is your plan and what is your timetable? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Timtrent,

I feel foolish, but once again, I apologize for completely misunderstanding the issue. I thought it only concerned my uploads...

I didn't realize that other contributions were also causing problems. I am therefore stopping my contributions here as of now, this being my last one.

Please remember that I am a volunteer and doing this to improve and not destroyed the project. I have no idea how I am going to proceed and how I will manage my time for those tasks. So how long it will take me to undo ALL my contributions: probably years, with 387,223 edits, which means at least 1 minute per edit to undo.

Keep in mind this is not pleasant and motivating to destroy works that I (wrongly but sincerally) thought were valuable.

Thank you. Fabe56 (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Fabe56 This discussion is about your enormous quantity of uploads, uploaded uncritically en masse.

I agree. When I checked you has 202,108 uploads. Some of these will be of genuine benefit to Wikimedia Commons. However, it appears that the great majority have been uploaded mechanically, with no evidence of thought about why they have been chosen, and no useful categorisation afterwards. I accept that you uploaded them in good faith, believing that you were enhancing the project. The real outcome is that you have created a large logistical challenge, both for yourself and for others.

I suggest that there may be tools only accessible to administrators to assist with clearing the enormous pile, and that you ask for administrative help. This is especially important, since only administrators can delete files

Let me look at four recent examples taken from yur upload log om 28 January 2026:

• File:Bored (53152633849).jpg
• File:Cat on bin (53105026041).jpg
• File:Grumpy Cat (52740578430).jpg
• File:Cat on a fence (52740293244).jpg

None is COM:INUSE, none has a useful filename, none is categorised.

Yes, it is likely to feel disheartening. I can do nothing about that. It is disheartening to have had to bring the matter here. I tried to engage with you on your user talk page to save the need to come here, but here we are, and you are blocked from uploading. I recognise that this all disrupts your hobby, but solving the problem is part of that hobby.

So I ask you again, With precision, please, what is your plan and what is your timetable? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Fabe56 You are active on Wikidata, and have been for several days, despite needing to contribute here, to this discussion. You will have seen the pings. As time passes without your providing input into methodology removal of files my own good faith is starting to decay. I am concluding that you have no plan, no timetable. Convince me, convince us that you are going to contribute here, please.

Yann removed your ability to upload files here. That is a very simple block, and is to prevent further abuses of uploading privileges. Lack of engagement with solving this self created problem may result in wider blocks (0.9 probability).

Continuing with editing other projects without a positive contribution here would be easy to construe as a lack of interest in helping clear up behind yourself. Please do not bury your head in the sand. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I am drawing the conclusion from their user page that Fabe56 has withdrawn from Commons, and will not assist in any way with the cleanup. I draw no inference from their user talk page; their habit is to archive 100% periodically.

It is now up to the rest of us to clean house. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I have left a message at User talk:Fabe56 § I think you may have retired from Commons for the moment which I hope will encourage them to continue here, and in the hope of ameliorating their stress assuming that has arisen from here.

I hope we will have their input to the formulation of a plan to seek to identify and compartmentalise those to retain from those to remove. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Recent DRs have lowered the vast nukes of files by a couple of hundred. This has menat real work for a number of people. I feel we need an administrative approach to purging many of these files. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I have made some more small progress today. Unfortunately the progress is 100% manual. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

There is more (manual) progress. The uploader appears to have returned and is, form time to time, making some endeavours to solve the mess. Unfortunately I see no progress from them in eliminating the uncritical uploads. I do see some attempts at categorisation, but the greater part I have seen so far of the uploads are pretty much streams of private pictures. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Depressingly the progress is slow. What would be ideal would be for @Fabe56 to join in and nominate teaches of files for deletion. Instead they are corralling some files in categories which appear to be unhelpful in solving the mess. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

What is available to help to solve this?

We have a major difficulty expressed by Fabe56 in the segment above. They seem to be ready and willing to solve this issue that they have created, but express doubts on their ability do do so, and in a timely manner. I have paraphrased. If I need correction I am happy to receive it.

The idea of creating DRs for (say) 100 at a time means an enormous number of DRs and a lot of work for a lot of people, coupled with "DR Fatigue" for the community. I have seen admins perform bulk deletes before. @Yann: : As the blocking admin I wonder if you have thoughts on how they may be assisted by one or more admins to get rid of the files that meet any of the conditions for removal, including:

• Named with names that are insufficiently descriptive to allow them to be retrieved and used
• Not sorted into any categorisation scheme that is of use to Commons
• Not COM:INUSE in any valid and meaningful way
• Duplicates or near duplicates of each other
• in some manner 'out of scope' for Commons
• Form part of a personal picture library, something that Commons may not be used for

It is likely that some of the >200,000 uploads will be useful to Commons even if they fail one of more of these suggested conditions for removal. I am unsure that time will be well spent by trying to determine that. obviously I am just asking Yann as blocking admin. I do not seek to restrict this conversation to them alone. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

If some of these should be batch DRs (files with clearly parallel reasons to be deleted), it is pretty easy to use VFC to set up a batch DR. More or less, the process is:

• If they are in a given category, or can be found with a given search, you use that category/search to launch VFC. Note that is is fine if not everything in the category/search should be DR'd: within VFC, you can be selective.
• In VFC, set your action to "Nominate for deletion"
• I think the rest of it is pretty obvious.

Similarly, if a search will find files that can be batch-categorized, Cat-a-lot is very useful for that.

Not being in use is not a reason for any action; it is just that being in use is a reason to keep almost anything that is not CSAM, a copyright violation, or unacceptable AI-generated content.

Presumably those should help whittle things down to something more tractable. Obviously, bad names and duplicates typically have to be dealt with one by one (the only major exception being that if there is a pattern of renaming, admins have a tool for that).

- Jmabel ! talk 21:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

There are 202,108 files. I have made a trivial start. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fabe56 See the current last discussion on the page. This is just 24 files and will take years. I use VFC. This is a batch DR. It is easy to do the first few. Then you have to scroll south and wait for the screen to fill. DRs take a finite time. So this DR is an example of the futility of this approach.

Maybe I should try all 202,108 in one go (not a serious suggestion, I have no intention of doing something so patently disruptive). This will take a task force to solve. I do not believe DRs to be the way to go here. That was my first and likely last on this set of uploads. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

If there is no search that easily finds them, and the only way you can find them is to go through the user uploads, you can use Cat-a-Lot to stick a maintenance category on them, then use VFC to nominate them for deletion (and then, ideally, strip the maintenance category). But I sure do wish that the selection methods for our various tools were coded separately from the actions they take, so we could mix and match. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I suspect someone who knows how can write a query to achieve it. It's not that there's any rush, except it would be good to tidy this up more than somewhat while we're all still alive(!).

Even if the query split them into maintenance cats containing 100 or so each (based on sane criteria) that would make the task possible, albeit imperfect. Doing any of this manually is where madness lies. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 02:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Timtrent: In past years, I have used one temp category Category:Jefftemp to assist categorizing files found with searches and whatnot, and then nominated them from there to subsections of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jefftemp. Doing it directly from the searches could be cleaner; good luck with that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G. I agree, but I do not have the IT literacy myself to create any form of search. Nor, yet, do we have agreed criteria to try to ensure we do not destroy a useful resource while removing files that are not useful to Commons. Some of my bulleted items in this section look to be likely criteria, others of them need to be modified or discarded. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The uploads are so numerous it's hard to actually evaluate at what rate the files are in scope, categorized, and named. It's worth noting Fabe56 isn't even in the top 50 most prolific uploaders here, and categorization for any batch that doesn't come with structured data is a persistent problem we could use better guidelines for. Certainly I'd like to see tighter restrictions on f2c and some auditing of new users' transfers so we avoid getting to this point.
If issues truly run through all of their uploads, I don't know that actually tagging and listing all of them at DR is reasonable, and can probably be handled through some other avenue. But I don't know that it's true that they run through all of their uploads. Here's what I'd like to know: Fabe56 could you provide an estimate for what % of uploads you think are categorized, the % that likely have a useful name, and the % that are likely in-scope? If you agree you may have gone overboard with some of the uploads, would you like some time to go back through them? I don't see a need to just delete everything if you think many/most are fine, or if you want some time to investigate. Since they're transferred from Flickr, I suspect just evaluating account-by-account rather than file-by-file may be the most efficient approach, then you can say "yes files transferred from this account are probably out of scope" or "files transferred from this account are useful and I'll work on categorizing/renaming". — Rhododendrites ^talk |  02:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites Your approach seems eminently reasonable. It also makes sure that Fabe56 does not feel the enormity of the task, since your thinking lightens the load significantly. Since they have been active on Wikidata this morning I have every hope that they will have seen your ping and will wish to start engaging with this process. I know they will wish to have their uploading block removed, and I know they uploaded in good faith, believing their actions to be positive. I continue to assume their good faith, and I have faith in them. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

It would be nice to stop using words that I haven't used. I respect the authorities and the decisions made here, I have never contested them, I have never fought against these choices!

I never express the wish to have my uploading block removed. It's not up to me to decide.

@Rhododendrites, I was working on categorization, modifying and renaming my uploads, but I was also asked to stop all my edits. I am well aware that I cannot manage everything on my own, but many editors also help me refine them, etc. That's what I liked about Commons, the fact that we helped each other to improve the information collected.

Anyway, I'm sorry to leave such a mess, but I really don't want to fight. I don't have the energy for that right now.

Goodbye. Fabe56 (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Fabe56 You are perfectly entitled to categorise. The only edits you are precvented from making are uoploads

To be clear, your message is capable of being interpreted as "I am walking away from the mess, do whatever you like." Is that your intention? If it is not, please state your intention. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• I have opened a dialogue with KylieTastic on their Commons talk page. I have chosen not to ping them and distract them. I've asked them about the formulation of useful queries to seek to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. They hope, but cannot promise, to look at this over the weekend. There is, of course, no deadline.

We need a consensus on what to remove and what to keep, and I am not yet sure what that consensus might be, nor, quite, how to reach it. We need to assume that the uploader will not help.. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

 Question However, see this diff, whcih may make life simpler. However, are user requests not time limited based upon upload date? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Possibly part of a strategy for moving this forward: have a bot tag all of Fabe56's uploads with a template that indicates that it needs (1) name review, (2) category review, (3) description review. Make sure the template is designed to facilitate batch removals of any one of those independent of the other. So if the template were, for example, {{Fabe56 uploads needing review|name=1|category=1|description=1}}, it would be easy using VFC and regular expressions to remove "name=1" and "category=1" from all Fabe56 uploads in Category:While42 SF No 10 (since I believe these now have acceptable names). The 3 resulting (large) maintenance categories of what needs each kind of review would be much more tractable than working directly from Special:ListFiles/Fabe56.

This would help prevent different people who are working on this from redundantly checking the same files. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

That makes a great deal of sense 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I have created a discussion on the underlying issues at Commons:Village pump/Technical § Exploratory: Handling the uploading of images better to which I hope there will be many contributions 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

From the linked diff above and the responses here, I get the sense that Fabe56 does not intend to fix any of this, which is disappointing, but also I can empathize with their frustration at the prospect of such a large task. Given it's so much faster to copy from Flickr en masse than to do the hard work of evaluating, describing, naming, and categorizing each photo, that puts us in a tough spot. We should have higher standards for use of bulk uploading tools IMO, but for now, from a damage control perspective, here's one possible approach (similar to what I suggested Fabe56 could do): I created a quarry query here that groups their uploads by most frequent category in order to try to take a Flickr stream-level view of the issues. Presumably poorly named files and out of scope files would often be grouped by such categories, and it seems more efficient rather than scroll through uploads in reverse chronological order. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

That is a highly useful query, @Rhododendrites, and beats my manual approach 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-16139-88 appears to be related cuz of bulk edits I think that they are not innocent because of a pattern Gladcape2013 (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Journey_to_Midway_Island_(5548529782).jpg&oldid=1183303241 Gladcape2013 (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gladcape2013 I have pinged you on a request for checkuser. You may file these yourself with ease. Thank you for this information. Others will investigate and reach a conclusion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that there is a serious problem here. I'm not sure I'd agree with what the serious problem is. DS (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @~2026-16139-88 and reminding others that if a COM:AN/U discussion expands to include the conduct of more users, those users should be notified. - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Would Gladcape2013 or someone please explain to me what, if anything, about User:~2026-16139-88's they find problematic? I sampled a few, and they looked like good edits to me, by someone apparently knowledgeable and probably close to the subject depicted in these Flickr-sourced photos. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Some people are very angry that some other people are uploading too many images without properly adding them to categories, and have decided that all such images should be deleted. Or... something. DS (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven Anger? No. I raised the issue over this one uploader because I see uncritical bulk uploading by scraping entire photo streams from any source to be against the ethos of Commons, and have been working in my way to seek to contain this. Anger has no place here.

I see the need to create a preventative solution to this for all uploads for the future and well as a corrective solution. Corrective action is arduous, and interferes with everything else here. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

theyre good edits Gladcape2013 (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

~2026-16139-88's pov

Commenting here on Jmabel request/notification:

1. Preliminary note: I didn't recognize neither User:Fabe56 nor User:Timtrent until I found several good photos of birds affected by Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Midway Journey III (see also this comment), so I don't know any backstory (if existing).
2. From my point of view, (many, or most of) Fabe56's uploads are problematic due to their mass (several thousands) combined with low-quality descriptions, meaningless filenames (often), and rather generic categorization, and because of the high portion of out-of-scope private/personal photos (as pointed out above: unidentified, or identifiable but non-notable people).
3. From my point of view, Timtrent's latest deletion requests (ca. 50 requests with identical wording) are problematic due to the mass of affected files (thousands), of which not less than 500 (example 1, 2) are obviously useful/in-scope (apart from serial filenames, for the time being). The requests are also problematic because of their undifferentiated, weak justification. And they include some errors (uploads by unrelated users). Timtrent's modus operandi pretty much looks like blind "revenge activism", or alike, and actually doubles the problem (clean-up needed under pressure of time: mainly for other users, including admins).
4. This case reminds me of the Winterysteppe/Artix Kreiger/Tyler ser Noche complex (yes, years ago!), and of similar cases. – A better solution (than mass DR) would be to create and fill a maintenance category like Category:Files uploaded by Fabe56 (review needed) – I'm sure this could be done by experienced users with database queries and scripts (cf similar suggestions above) – plus Category:Files uploaded by Fabe56 (checked), Category:Files uploaded by Fabe56 (bad filenames), Category:Files uploaded by Fabe56 (potentially delete) etc.
5. Additional note: I tend to ignore User:Gladcape2013, whose 11th action on Commons was to post a weird suspicion on the admins' noticeboard, and otherwise doesn't seem to be an active user.

Cheers ~2026-16139-88 (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

May you kindly please apologize because I am very active Gladcape2013 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gladcape2013: you're not in any sort of trouble, so no need to defend yourself. Please, you and 2026-16139-88, let's not get into some silly tit-for-tat here. But you said above that 2026-16139-88 was "not innocent because of a pattern". May I take it that your later "theyre good edits" means that you are withdrawing that "not innocent" remark, and that you don't have a problem with their edits, and we can drop this side issue of ~2026-16139-88's conduct and get back to the main matter at hand? - Jmabel ! talk 01:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

yes Gladcape2013 (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The problem

This problem requires accurate definition. I tried to do this way up in the thread. I do not think I did that particularly well. The participation of others, perhaps especially those with lengthy experience here, will be welcomed. Once consensus exists on what the problem is, and also whether that is a problem we wish to solve, we can move forwards into agreeing a route. My suggestion for those with lengthy experience is not worded to exclude those with small or limited experience. New eyes on an established ecosystem can create great insight. And, in forming a consensus, new eyes have an absolute equal right to say what they think. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Above, I made some suggestions:

• Named with names that are insufficiently descriptive to allow them to be retrieved and used
• Not sorted into any categorisation scheme that is of use to Commons
• Not COM:INUSE in any valid and meaningful way
• Duplicates or near duplicates of each other
• in some manner 'out of scope' for Commons
• Form part of a personal picture library, something that Commons may not be used for

I believe we need to decide whether any or these are something which we can vary or adopt and form a consensus over what to do about these, both in this specific case and extrapolate that towards an overall policy, nothing that policy is forced in a different forum.

I do not think that these bullets are ready yet to turn into proposals. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

While my description of the problem would have some overlap with Timtrent's, I believe that his description has the wrong thrust. The problem is that we have a large number of files that Fabe56 uploaded without curating them, either in terms of scope or in terms of name/description/categorization. The ones that are out of scope (or duplicates or copyvios, though few are) should, of course be deleted. The rest need (belated) curation in terms of name/description/categorization.

A secondary problem is that the only way we can readily find the files in question is Special:ListFiles/Fabe56, which is not suited to the purpose: sorted by upload date rather than in any useful order, and no way when looking at it to identify either what has already been curated, what may currently be nominated for deletion, and what may already have survived a prior DR (for other than procedural reasons; DRs closed for procedural reasons have no bearing on whether the file is worth keeping). I believe this can largely be addressed with maintenance categories, but this section is supposed to be for defining the problem, not proposing a solution.

COM:INUSE has almost nothing to do with the matter, except that it is a reason not to delete something we might otherwise delete for being out of scope. If we deleted files for not being in use by sister projects, we would delete 80-90% of Commons content, probably including some featured images and media. Forming "part of a personal picture library" is not relevant: whether the particular file is in scope is relevant. If some random person has a photo album of a trip to the Nepal or even just San Francisco, the pictures of eating lunch with their friends are going to be mainly out of scope, but it doesn't make their pictures of buildings or the countryside any less valuable than anyone else's.

The San Francisco and Nepal examples are not arbitrary: there have been a series of DRs that were roughly as indiscriminate as the uploads, where some quite clearly in-scope photos of both of these were nominated for deletion. And that constitutes a third problem: overreaction. As far as I can tell, Fabe56's indiscriminate uploads present a moderately serious but not particularly urgent problem. The waste of several terabytes of storage is real, but it is also water under the bridge: since "deletion" is soft deletion, we aren't getting that back. If it looked like there were a large number of incorrectly licensed files, or copyvios, that could be a pretty urgent problem, but I see no sign of that: the only copyright issues I've seen are the usual issues of limited freedom of panorama that we encounter in almost every mass upload to Commons. Similarly if there were some large body of material here that was objectionable for some reason (promoting fascism; inaccurate maps; etc.) that would have some urgency I see no sign of that. The main issue is a large number of files (in scope and otherwise) that almost no non-editor is going to find because they have meaningless names, no useful categorization, and no usefully searchable description. We need to take out the trash and polish the jewels, but neither of those tasks is an emergency. - Jmabel ! talk 22:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

A possible approach

A possible approach to managing this situation. This is by no means a comprehensive solution, but I think it would be likely to prevent duplication of work, and could begin to step things forward.

1. I'd really like to start by closing at least the bulk of the large current DRs of Fabe56's uploads.
   • For every DR that is basically a ton of photos of unidentifiable people at a meeting of a non-notable tech group, and does not seem to contain other content, close these as delete.
   • For other DRs of images that truly represent one thing—e.g. a particular motorcycle race—try to find some editor who knows the subject well enough to say whether this event is Commons-level notable or not, whether it's a "keep all", "keep a couple", or "delete", and trust their determination.
   • For the more heterogeneous DRs, do a procedural close as keep, probably don't even bother with {{Kept}} on the talk pages of the kept files, and expect to DR a fair amount of this content, but in a more manageable way. (If anyone does not get what problem I am addressing here, see the remarks from myself (Jmabel), Ziv, DragonflySixtyseven, and Ooligan toward the bottom of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Sylvain Kalache Flickr stream with bad file names, in dialogue with Timtrent.)
2. Also on that same DR, near the bottom, DragonflySixtyseven has remarked on some already-deleted content that probably was deleted erroneously and should be restored. I leave it to them to expand on that.
3. Create a template and maintenance categories to make sure we don't duplicate work here. I'll expand on that later.
4. Anyone who wants can add appropriate categories, names, descriptions, etc. to photos that seem to them to be worth keeping. I gather several people are already doing that. Similarly, there are also cases where adding a category is a good preliminary to a DR: e.g. the now-deleted Category:Slideshare office warming party 2011.
5. Start doing DRs of groups of images that will almost certainly stand or fall together, or at least where the farthest from that might be "delete most of these, but keep a couple."

Assuming people think this is sane, I'll expand on the template and maintenance categories later, probably somewhere between 12 and 24 hours from now. - Jmabel ! talk 04:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

On their talk page I have assured @Jmabel that I am in broad agreement. Any differences of opinion will be and are minor. I have also assured them that I am bound, willingly, by consensus, and that I will open no further DRs in this matter except by consensus.

I believe their approach to be valid. The current DRs may be closed in any appropriate manner and closed as soon as sensible. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

---

So here's my idea for template/category support. Create a Template:Uploads review. (I'm deliberately not making this specific to Fabe56 because we could use this same approach for other problematic batch uploads.) Have a bot stick it on 100% of Fabe56's uploads. If no parameters are set, it would place a message on each file page along the following lines:

The name, description, categories, and caption of this image may need checking. If you believe these have been fully dealt with, you may remove this template. If you believe some, but not all, of the above have been dealt with, you can add your name to the {{Uploads review}} template as having validated them. E.g. "{{Uploads review|description=MyAccount|name=MyAccount}}" would mean you believe name and description have been dealt with, but you cannot vouch for categories or caption. No need to write out an actual link to your account, just the account name. If you believe the file should be deleted: Consider whether it is one of a group of closely related files that will probably stand or fall together. If it is, that is best handled with a Mass deletion request (Mass DR). If it would not be a case for a Mass DR, you can start either a regular deletion request or (if appropriate) speedy deletion. If you believe the file should be deleted but you are not comfortable with starting the relevant type of deletion process, you can use the {{Uploads review}} template to flag this and someone else will follow up: e.g. "{{Uploads review|delete=SHORT EXPLANATION OF WHY}}" Examples of good explanations would be "out of scope, non-notable event" or "very low quality". Please don't be offended if someone disagrees and reverts that instead of following up on your deletion suggestion.

If no parameters are set, it would go in the following maintenance categories:

• Category:Upload review - needs category check
• Category:Upload review - needs filename check
• Category:Upload review - needs description check
• Category:Upload review - needs caption check

Setting any of the corresponding template parameters to a non-empty string means the relevant category would be skipped, as well as removing or striking through the relevant word in the first sentence of the template display.

If "delete" is set, it would go in

• Category:Upload review - deletion candidate

and not in any of the other categories.

My own feeling is that in many cases categories will be the most useful thing to add. Once files are decently categorized, someone could (for example) do a search such as 'deepcat:"Alcatraz Island" incategory:"Upload review - needs filename check"' to find uploads about Alcatraz Island that still need filename work.

I would hope that in many cases tools such as COM:VFC will allow a lot of cleanup to be done on a batch basis.

Pinging @Fabe56 here, in case they have any issue with this. Also, Fabe56, I hope you will actively participate in the cleanup process, especially categorization.

And of course suggestions from anyone else are welcome, too, including "no, I've got this completely different way I want to do this."

Timtrent has suggested we look into how to head off problems like this in the future long before the point where we are trying to clean up tens or hundreds of thousand files. I agree entirely, but I think we need to solve the immediate problem first, then address that one. - Jmabel ! talk 19:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jmabel,

I never stop (except during few days I thought all my edit were problematic) improving Wikimedia Commons from Categorizing, Geolocating etc. Since few days many renaming proposal has been refected, so I may not put a lot of effort there since it's really time consuming and I really feel I'm annoying with them, but for the other part, no issue to report!

Thanks. Fabe56 (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

 Support this approach as a good starting point. @Fabe56 I think I have understood that you created this with goodwill and with good intent. Please continue to work with goodwill and good intent to help by being part of the solution. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel Apart from Fabe56's continued corrective work here, for which I thank them and ask them to continue, I see no particular appetite at present from admins and 'ordinary' users here to solve this specific issue nor to solve the more general issue of well intentioned but indiscriminate uploads. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:17, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I've contributed to the point of saying how I'd approach it if I wanted to "drive", but as I said, I don't see this as a higher priority than other uncurated or poorly curated content. I spend about an hour a day (often more) curating content I can improve, and I consider it an important task, but I focus largely on content related to the Pacific Northwest and Alaska (and to a lesser extent a few cities I know well elsewhere in the world) where I know I'm bringing more than an average person would. - Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel Indeed, it is not a higher priority than other material. It is simply an example of what has been allowed to transpire over several years. No criticism of you was meant, and I am certain you did not feel criticised.

I think the issue is the enormity of the task of correction. Perhaps Commons should accept the status quo obtaining over historical uploads and concentrate on minimising the future issues of other good faith but mistaken uploaders? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Tvlufryjrvyjjryifmytvmu

• Tvlufryjrvyjjryifmytvmu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Copyright violations after warning. — Tarkoff / 18:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, files already deleted. Yann (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Yann, please be aware of the COM:IU violation, too.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Sorry, but I don't get it. This is probably a thrown-away account, but the account name is not IMO against policy. Or am I missing something? Yann (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: See COM:IU#Confusing usernames. --Lymantria (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done I have never blocked—until now—someone for this reason, but OK. Yann (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

សុត្តន្ត_សិរីហ្វុង

• User: សុត្តន្ត_សិរីហ្វុង (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:The Royal Palace, Oudong Mean Chey.png after final warning and block for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Per the DR, that does not appear to be a copyright violation, though it is a false claim of "own work." - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done. The shown file was not a copyvio, but the user still uploaded copyvios after warnings and even block, so I reblocked him/her for a month (second block). Taivo (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thanks. I'm sorry I picked the wrong filename to use above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

ROHINGYA BRUCE LEE

• User: ROHINGYA BRUCE LEE (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Vandalism--Trade (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user. Currently block is not needed. Taivo (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet User:Nguyen.Bao.Anh.9321

I noticed that some of User:Nguyen.Bao.Anh.9321's rename requests do not comply with renaming guidelines and they are identical to those of blocked sockpuppets: User:Alouette99I and User:Ferdimma9A. For example, see , . Deltaspace42 (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and tagged, together with other sock Tikoniv4977. --Lymantria (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

TMX Marketing

• User: TMX Marketing (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Evidently a promotional account for TMX, trying to remove old logos.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• I did a speedy keep on both of their DRs. Hopefully they will understand and not do this sort of thing again.
• Account name still could be a problem (and certainly would be on en-wiki if they try to edit there), but I leave it to someone else to decide. - Jmabel ! talk 03:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I feel, that the user will not come back. If this is untrue, (s)he can be blocked. Taivo (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Flag editwars

Hi, I blocked Westlinda06 (talk · contribs) for editwarring, but I wonder if other editors should be blocked as well. Other concerned users are at least ErrrrrWhat (talk · contribs) and MarsFerz (talk · contribs). Yann (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

If the other two were edit warring with Westlinda then I'd say no need to block them because they were going against someone who does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia per the enwiki block reasoning and their numerous reverted edits in other wiki projects. Nakonana (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I see that they are probably separate cases.

MarsFerz has not been active since 23 March (since their last block?) but pretty much all their edits on enwiki were reverted, mostly as vandalism, so if they come back and engage in the same behavior, they should probably be blocked. Nakonana (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

ErrrrrWhat seemingly tried to undo whatever Westlinda and MarsFerz were doing and since the latter two's edits were found to be problematic I'd say that ErrrrrWhat was at least acting in good faith (and maybe just fixed actual vandalism). Nakonana (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Likely block evasion

• Soumava2002 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• William Debraj.M (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• DebrajMJ (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User:Soumava2002 was recently blocked for repeated copyright violations, mainly involving political logos and flags uploaded as "own work".

A new account, User:William Debraj.M, has begun uploading very similar content shortly after the block. The uploads show the same pattern: political party logos/flags with likely copyright issues.

Both accounts uploaded files related to the same entities (e.g. CPI, JLKM, BGPM), including closely matching filenames such as "Flag of JLKM" (png vs jpg).

Given the strong similarity in subject matter, upload pattern, and timing, this appears to be a continuation of the same behavior.

Requesting admin review. JaydenChao (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef. as well as DebrajMJ. All copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Tag team in Commons:Village pump/Copyright#FoP in Bangladesh

It seems a certain party is using the tag team method to build consensus on a patently wrong proposal. Some users are clearly using AI to comment and are making personal attacks. Is there anything to do about it? thanks — Kaim (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Please block the next spammer

• DanielJamesArchive1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user only-vandalism account --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

   Done by your fellow Leo (and now glocked). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Removing authorship

Iaroslav79 removes the ajusted author from the file . Apparently (mistakenly) he thinks that this will somehow help save the file in the project. Initially the authorship was established a year ago by Kaganer. Source for this author, for example, post at verified page of Committee for State Control, Use, and Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments - a structural subdivision of the Government of St. Petersburg: "Главный дом, вид со стороны сада. Фотограф М.А. Величко. 1940 год". Please return the author's attribution or delete the file so as not to infringe the copyright of Velichko's (died in 1986) heirs. Insider (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Insider: I notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above. Pings are not enough.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Insider (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

As I have already explained twice, neither the photographer nor the date of this photograph has been reliably established. The VK website referenced by the user “Insider” is not a credible source. The attribution to Velichko is a guess. What evidence is there that the user “Kaganer” has conducted serious historical research regarding this photograph? Is there a scientific article or book that identifies the photographer and the date of the photograph? I am referring to a book by a local historian Горбатенко С. Б. "Петергофская дорога: Историко-архитектурный путеводитель", which is cited in the main article, and that lists the date as the 1910s and does not name an author. Iaroslav79 (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this book doesn't contain any photos with attribution. Insider (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Да, я думаю, что провел тогда иконографический анализ, раз решил вмешаться.
С. Б. Горбатенко в издании 2022 года уточнил атрибуцию фото, указав что это "фото первой трети XX века". Сюда попадают и 1910-е, и 1930-е. Но в его книге, действительно, авторство фотографий не указано, т.к. точная атрибуция авторства в задачи этого издания и не входит. В этом отношении, музейные и архивные публикации всегда точнее, и, соответственно, должны считаться более надежными источниками.

Далее, когда мы полагаемся на публикацию "ВКонтакте", мы доверяем не площадке, а публикатору - в данном случае, КГИОП СПб. Утверждать иное - это передергивание. Тем не менее, в таких публикациях сотрудники часто бывают достаточно небрежны, и сами часто опираются на сетевые ошибки (в чем я их неоднократно поправлял).

Однако вот тут мы видим уже непосредственно публикацию КГИОП, и в ней рядом опубликовано как обсуждаемое фото (авторство не указано), так и фото, сделанное Величко в 1940 (авторство указано). Очевидна разница.

В Госкаталоге есть целая серя фото из фондов ГМИ СПб, в которую обсуждаемое фото очень хорошо ложится. Пример. Они датируются 1910-ми (под вопросом).

Исходя из этого, я считаю, что это я в прошлый раз ошибся, и сейчас более корректно датировать эти фото 1910-ми годами, а авторство Величко считать маловероятным. И @Iaroslav79 в данном случае прав.
----
Summary in English: I'm  Support @Iaroslav79 's opinion now. This was my mistake in past. --Kaganer (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Хорошо, Павел, суть понял, запрос на COM:AN можно закрывать. Но на Госкаталог в этом вопоросе полагаться не стоит, ошибки там массовые, это фото там вообще 1960-х-1970-х годов и сделано в Стрельне. Я уже написал в КГИОП СПб посмотрим что они ответят. Insider (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Да, КГИОП СПб подтвердил что это техническая ошибка. Insider (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Miniliu

Miniliu (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ovruni: Did you not see "Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this." above? I notified them for you, this time.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I blocked her for a week, all contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

User:R162A 1 Train

• R162A 1 Train (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Through some warnings, this user didn't stop uploading copyvio images including obvious unfree animation character and game images. Netora (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@Netora: You don't seem to have notified them of this discussion on their user page, as is required. I will do it for you. - Jmabel ! talk 21:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Cedar cones

Cedar cones (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I haven't looked closely but this looks like a problem account. I went to their user page after looking at their slightly odd reverted edit on User:Adamant1, and found a "Template editor given" section. First reaction: "Hmm, must be an experienced editor whose path I've somehow never crossed." Second reaction: "Who gave that to them?" Check page history: they wrote that on their own user page.

Account appears to be about 24 hours old, active here and ru-wiki. No objection if someone just decides "vandal" and blocks them without a hearing, but for now I will notify them on their talk page and give them a chance to explain. - Jmabel ! talk 17:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I just reverted this account twice. The third time will be a block. Yann (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Yann  Support block after yet another bizarre edit. HurricaneZeta^C 19:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month, clearly not OK. Yann (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Note that the reason for their ruwiki block is block evasion, this is someone's sock account. Though, I don't know whether they've been been disruptive on Commons with their previous account. The ruwiki block log doesn't mention whose sock this is. Nakonana (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Unless cross-wiki behaviour (i.e. same behaviour) anything on the ruwiki normally does not apply here. LuvsMG481 (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Now globally locked. We are  Done here. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:14, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

That was as a sock of Special:Ca/Руй Пульези.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:27, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Cedar cones

@Jmabel ! there are a lot of constructive edits and few non-constructive edits in my contribution, but why did you call it a problematic account? Firstly, I installed a template editor on my personal page, and secondly, this is not a problematic account! Cedar cones (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cedar cones: Lying about the rights you have like in Special:Diff/1190783977 is a problem.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

All cleaned up. Though I haven't checked every contribution. Anyone interested might take a quick look. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:15, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

1234emis

1234emis (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked Emis for a week, all contributions are now deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Kreeratiyarot.c

Kreeratiyarot.c (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has been making Thai nationalist edits and DR's against files which depict Cambodian clothing. User has no other global activity, no uploads. TansoShoshen (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not making "Thai nationalist edits". I am correcting clear cases of misinformation.

Many files, including those uploaded by MoonsMoon, incorrectly label **modern Thai national costumes** (Chud Thai Phra Ratchaniyom, especially Siwalai style) as "ancient Khmer clothing".

These styles were designed and standardized by **Her Majesty Queen Sirikit** in the 1960s.

• • Reliable sources:**

- Queen Sirikit Museum of Textiles official exhibition (Google Arts & Culture):

https://artsandculture.google.com/story/fashioning-tradition-queen-sirikit-creates-a-national-dress-for-thailand-queen-sirikit-museum-of-textiles/AQWBYBQmZhyTIg

- “Queen Sirikit’s ‘Chut Thai’ legacy”, The Nation Thailand (2026):

https://www.nationthailand.com/life/art-culture/40060658

Ancient Khmer sbai in Angkor bas-reliefs are simple draped fabrics, while the luxurious embroidery, draping, and tailoring in the disputed files match modern Thai Chud Thai exactly.

I only correct obvious mislabeling. If any specific edit is incorrect, please provide reliable counter-sources. I am happy to discuss based on evidence.

Thank you. Kreeratiyarot.c (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

If the information is incorrect, that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

I apologize for any inconvenience caused. I now understand that the priority should be on correcting inaccurate information rather than deletion.

I will focus on improving descriptions and categories going forward.

Thank you for your guidance. Kreeratiyarot.c (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Not to bludgeon the process, I just want to clarify because I feel a little misrepresented (not saying it's deliberate, this can happen sometimes), as if I'm denying factual information.

To reiterate, I'm aware Queen Sirikit and Pierre Balmain choose certain garments in certain styles and patterns and embroidery to be the "Thai outfit" in the 1960s. Those are facts. But that doesn't mean they invented said garments, patterns, and embroidery, especially those that predate Thailand's (and Siam's) existence, nor do sources make that claim. I provided sources from art and textile historians as well as scholars for draping/pleating styles, garment origins, pattern-origins (along with photographic proof of the textile patterns that again predate Siam/Thailand's existence), and the Khmer names for them. That isn't negated simply because Sirikit and Balman chose these particular clothes to be the Thai outfit in the 1960s, nor does that choice project backward into history, nor does it mean Thailand has exclusive rights to the clothing. That's all, I hope it was clear. Thanks! MoonsMoon MoonsMoon 18:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again for the discussion.

To further clarify the specific object being referenced:

The swan-shaped shoulder ornament in Thai royal attire is formally known as “Hongsa Phet” (หงส์เพชร) or “Phra Noppharup Hongsa Khab Yat Phet” (พระนพรูปหงส์คาบหยาดเพชร). It is a documented form of royal jewellery worn on the shoulder (upper torso) as part of ceremonial dress.

This is supported by:

• Queen Sirikit Museum of Textiles (Bangkok), which documents the development and standardisation of modern Thai national dress, including royal accessories and their formal naming conventions.

• Thai cultural and historical sources describing royal regalia and court dress in the Rattanakosin period.

• Museum and archival photographs showing consistent use of swan-shaped shoulder ornaments as part of Thai royal ceremonial attire.

In contrast:

• While the hamsa (hongsa) is indeed a shared symbolic motif in Khmer and broader Southeast Asian art, its documented usage is primarily in religious iconography (temple bas-reliefs, mythological symbolism), rather than as a specific shoulder ornament in historical Khmer dress.

Therefore, the distinction remains:

– The motif (hamsa/hongsa): shared across cultures

– The specific jewellery form (swan shoulder ornament / “Hongsa Phet”): documented in Thai royal attire

If there are reliable academic or museum sources demonstrating the use of comparable shoulder ornaments in historical Khmer dress, I would be glad to review them.

My intention is only to ensure precise and verifiable descriptions.

Thank you. Kreeratiyarot.c (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

This appears to be spillover from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khmer traditional clothing Cambodian traditional clothing Khmer people Cambodian people Khmer culture Cambodian culture sbai sampot charobab sampot sarabap sampot robab.jpg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Haimylo

Haimylo (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) Uploading multiple files only used for advertisement. MinhVN1863 (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment User warned x 2. Diagrams tagged. The pictures may be in scope with a neutral description. Yann (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

The pictures are AI-generated and have no practical use. Omphalographer (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. User is warned, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

User:A_S_M_Jobaer

A_S_M_Jobaer (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

There has already been a prior discussion regarding the conduct of A S M Jobaer, particularly about very loose and incorrect categorization of uploaded files. In that discussion, the user was explicitly asked to improve categorization, to use the most specific relevant categories, and to avoid adding unrelated or overly general ones. The user acknowledged the feedback and stated that they understood the issues and would improve.

However, I am currently observing that the same problems persist, and in fact appear at scale. The user is uploading multiple files with clearly unrelated or misleading categories, often reusing the same categories regardless of the actual subject of the image.

A few examples found after just a minute of review:

• Boat photographed from a large distance, categorized as "Padma Bridge" and "People of Bangladesh": File:Padma_River_Life_19.jpg (version at the time of report)
• Birds sitting on poles, categorized as "Padma River", "People of Bangladesh" and "Padma Bridge": File:Padma_River_Life_32.jpg (version at the time of report)
• Silhouette at sunset, again categorized as "Padma Bridge": File:Sunset_over_river_with_golden_reflection_and_hazy_atmosphere_at_Padma_River_bank_04.jpg (version at the time of report)

These are not borderline cases but clearly incorrect categorizations.

Importantly, the previous discussion indicates that the user already understands the categorization rules and what is expected. Despite that, the same behavior continues. This suggests that the issue is no longer a lack of understanding, but rather a deliberate disregard of the guidelines.

Given the prior warnings and lack of improvement, I would like to ask administrators to review the situation and consider appropriate action. -- Jakubhal 20:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

• This user also upscales his own uploads, making huge 12000х8000 images. Upscaling is not making images better. Only the size inscreases, quality may be even lower. It is completely not Ok. ~2026-20957-44 (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Seconded.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Nominatedfordeletion-Db1

• Nominatedfordeletion-Db1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Suspected relation to previously confirmed Sikh-related sockpuppets (Truthfindervert LTA).

This account appears to follow the same pattern:

1. Single-purpose account making deletion nominations on Sikh Empire-related files
2. No valid policy-based rationale provided
3. Similar unusual writing style, including long incoherent sentences, misuse of abstract terms, and consistent grammatical patterns observed in previously confirmed accounts

JaydenChao (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Please file a COM:SPI not publish it here. Also can you supply us diffs as required by COM:SOCKLuvsMG481 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @JaydenChao as advised OP.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done, Same behavior as the other socks from User:Truthfindervert. Sock blocked, and also User:Del"tag"--Noindex & User:NOINDEX-(Googlesearch.txt). זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Wait I thought policy for suspected socks is to go to COM:SPI. Isn't it similar to enwiki? LuvsMG481 (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@LuvsMG481, hello! From Commons:Requests for checkuser:

Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases; pursue other options first, such as posting on the administrator's noticeboard

Deltaspace42 (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

There you go :)--LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

user:AlexanderWik

AlexanderWik (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Recent copyvio (File:Гаишники (Сериал).jpg) after multiple warnings, including the last one. Quick1984 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

где нарушение авторских прав? Я сделал скриншот из серии. AlexanderWik (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@AlexanderWik: The episode is still copyrighted. Are you the copyright holder of the episode? Do you have permission from that person or group of people? See COM:DW.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. 1 week block / блокирован на 1 неделю. скриншот из серии – вот это и есть нарушение авторских прав. Нельзя это делать. Taivo (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Uomo del Mondo

Uomo del Mondo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user removes SD templates while the source provided is All Rights Reserved. Romano1981 (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Removing the template was not the right way to do it, but for File:Андрей Литягин.jpg at least, "Данную фотографию можно распространять, изменять и использовать в любых (в том числе коммерческих) целях при сохранении данных об авторе в соответствии с лицензией Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International" on the source page https://mirage.su/mirazh/702-andrej-lityagin.html is pretty clear. @Pi.1415926535: may I guess you did not check that before deleting? - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I actually couldn't get the site to load. Should have checked archive.org, whoops. I'll undelete those. However, this user does appear to have numerous obvious copyvios, as well as File:Участники ВИА Ариэль.jpg which is a rather dishonest photomanipulation. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: I have no idea whether the other deletion was OK or not (the picture is no longer on the referenced source page, and nothing currently on the page is marked as free-licensed). I was just remarking that one SD was wrong. Unless you want me further involved, that was all. - Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I appreciate you catching my error! I just wanted to note the other issues for whoever happens to look at this, since I'm on mobile right now which isn't ideal for most admin tasks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Can an admin please delete some files

Atwngirl (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) User has multiple copyrighted files which claimed as own work. However upon analysing TinEye and found that for the Ford GT images, were copy-pasted from this site and for the Ferrari ones came from this site. User has also been warned twice about posting copyrighted photos.

• File:2018 ford gt 7.jpg
• File:2018 ford gt 6.jpg
• File:2018 ford gt 5.jpg
• File:2018 ford gt 3.jpg
• File:2018 ford gt 4.jpg
• File:2018 ford gt 2.jpg
• File:2018 ford gt 1.jpg
• File:2018 ford gt 8.jpg
• File:1984 Ferrari 308 GTS Quattrovalvole 1.jpg
• File:1984 Ferrari 308 GTS Quattrovalvole 2.jpg
• File:1984 Ferrari 308 GTS Quattrovalvole 12.jpg
• File:1984 Ferrari 308 GTS Quattrovalvole 11.jpg
• File:1984 Ferrari 308 GTS Quattrovalvole 9.jpg
• File:1984 Ferrari 308 GTS Quattrovalvole 10.jpg
• File:1984 Ferrari 308 GTS Quattrovalvole 8.jpg
• File:1984 Ferrari 308 GTS Quattrovalvole 6.jpg
• File:1984 Ferrari 308 GTS Quattrovalvole 7.jpg
• File:1984 Ferrari 308 GTS Quattrovalvole 4.jpg
• File:1984 Ferrari 308 GTS Quattrovalvole 3.jpg
• File:1984 Ferrari 308 GTS Quattrovalvole 5.jpg

Please let me know if this can be actioned. I don't want Wikimedia Commons to be able to host unfree images. These images are all copyrighted from the websites. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

The usual way to have such files deleted is to nominate them for {{Speedy deletion}} or tag them as {{Copyvio}}. (though that's probably not necessary for this batch anymore since you've already reported them here). Nakonana (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware mate. Because these are in batches I couldn't do a batch speedy deletion request. This copyright is a lot more complex so i want an admin to view these and erase them ASAP before the next minute we get in trouble for hosting unfree images. LuvsMG481 (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@LuvsMG481: Thanks, I think you came to the right place. VFC can do many things, including copyvio tagging, if one source is sufficient for tagging a group, or creating a mass DR that you can annotate later.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I won't be touching this tool. I don't want to have an overwhelming amount of tools. LuvsMG481 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done DR closed. Yann (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Leo ab1981

Leo ab1981 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log)

Many problems with source and probably AI-generated content. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 03:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked for two weeks and deleted a number of obvious copyvios and Commons:AIIP violations. A careful look at the other uploads is needed; I suspect almost all are copyvios and/or horrible AI upscales. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I deleted multiple copyvios. Likely I did not catch them all. Taivo (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535 and Taivo: I've tagged more false 'own' works. Romano1981 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535, Taivo, and Romano1981: user said, "How can I prove that I have the original photographs of the author Cecília de Assis Brasil in my family albums? These are photographs of an author who passed away more than 90 years ago." (translated from Portuguese) heylenny (^talk/_edits) 00:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Heylenny and Leo ab1981: several separate issues here. (1) You would upload faithful scans, not derivative AI-colorized works. If someone still doubted you, you could upload an album page or two as a whole. (2) In terms of copyright and licensing, you would have to deal with who was the photographer, not who was the subject; the subject's relatively young death has no bearing on the matter.

Commons is mainly concerned with the copyright status in two countries: the country the work is from (Brazil, I assume) and the United States. If the pictures have never been published, then I believe that in all cases the U.S. law is either identical or more strict, so that is the one we need to concern ourselves with. The situation for the U.S. is:

• If they are photographed by a known person who died before 1956 (70 years ago) then they are in the public domain and anyone can upload them.
• If they are photographed by a known person who died later than that, then they are still copyrighted regardless of when they were photographed, and the only person who can legitimately offer a license is the legal heir of the photographer.
• If there is no way to know the photographer (or to know their date of death), then they are copyrighted for 120 years from creation, so photos from before 1906 are public domain but any others (except for the edge case of known photographer with known heir but unknown death date) are basically "orphaned works" until 120 years after they were photographed, and there is no way we can accept them.

If the works were previously published, with first publication being in Brazil, then the "known photographer, known death date" case above is still a consideration (because of Brazilian law); the U.S. side of this is:

• If the work was published before 1931, then it is in the public domain in the United States.
• If the work was published in 1931 or later (95 years ago), then the work is copyrighted in the United States, and the only person who can legitimately offer a license is the legal heir of the photographer.

Note that mere possession of the photos proves nothing in its own right. More than one person could easily have a copy of any given photo. Jmabel ! talk 02:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

User:A.Savin

Although this user knows I don't want any contact with him, he's been stalking me for hours across all my projects. First on the German Wikipedia, now here, on my talk page (see the talk page here, as well as my talk page on de:WP and the vandalism prevention page on de:WP: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2026/04/06#Benutzer:A.Savin_(erl.)). I find this increasingly terrorizing and exhausting. And this guy seriously wants to know why I'm avoiding him. He's just proving why once again. I won't even start on the fact that he unjustifiably poisoned my account log, and on a personal mission at that. Please make it absolutely clear to this user that he has to leave me alone. This simply cannot continue. Or the U4C needs to review his decision and block this person permanently. He's already bothered me four times in the last few hours on the German-language Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Marcus_Cyron&action=history), and now twice here. This is just not normal anymore. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Absurdistan... --A.Savin 23:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Marcus Cyron, is there an IBAN on any project between you two? What are the matters that A.Savin is contacting you about?
@A.Savin, can't you try to minimize contact with Marcus to avoid drama? What are the matters you are contacting Marcus about? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not of importance, why he's doing this. I don't want ton interact with this person. Period. Six times in what? 2 hours? 3? I don't have to explain why I don't want to be stalked. A. Savin refuses to accept that I don't want any contact with him. Therefore, I expect this project, through its elected representatives, to protect me from him. His behavior is well-known; he didn't lose his admin rights on Commons for no reason. Furthermore, I know this person personally. I've already experienced his personality in all its glory. I don't want any more of it. It makes me extremely uncomfortable. I expect him to be kept away from my pages. He's welcome to run riot anywhere else. But at least in my own private sanctuary, I don't want any disturbance from him. Is it really that difficult? Is it really that hard to get protection? Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron, is there a reason you brought this to commons, rather than the appropriate noticeboard on dewiki or to the U4C? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 02:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

A.Savin re-posted a comment to Marcus Cyron's user talk page on Commons after MC deleted said comment from his dewiki user talk page and requested to not be contacted anymore by AS.

From what I've read in the linked conversations, the interaction itself was fine, so, if just going by this little background, this report boils down to MC not wanting to interact with AS in any way, and AS circumventing being banned from MC's dewiki user talk by going to his Commons user talk. Going by just this interaction, I don't think that's enough to justify a permanent block as requested, but AS should really stay away from MC's user talk pages on any Wiki projects as requested by MC. Nakonana (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Are you able to read? He follows me from de:WP to Commons with his bullshit! Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Marcus Cyron, This is not of importance, why he's doing this. No that is important. If he's notifying you of a template you broke, files you miscategorized or legitimate problems with your uploads, you don't get to say "I don't want contact with this user". If I got reported on ANU every time I dumped 6 {{Copyvionote}}s on someone's talk page, we'd be here.. well, occasionally. Without a list of diffs with timestamps and a note of what that edit is about, if not a full (machine) translation of the contents, what are we supposed to do? Do we have to build a case for you? With seemingly most of the edits in question being on dewiki, what are Commons admins supposed to do anyway?
A. Savin refuses to accept that I don't want any contact with him. Therefore, I expect this project, through its elected representatives, to protect me from him.
Um, no. As far as I'm aware, we have no w:WP:IBAN policy, and even if we did, the IBAN would have to be established first. If you want to invoke Commons:Civility and/or Commons:Harassment, you need to present your case better. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Don't talk nonsense. I have the right to live in peace even on Commons. If a User don't let me live in peace and follows me here with his harassing nonsense, so I have a right to protection. Perhaps that's precisely why you're not an admin on Commons, because you don't know about these things. So why are you interfering on this admin page? There's quite a large number of non-admins here again, while admins are few and far between. Thanks for nothing. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

What the fuck.
Let me tell you why I'm not an admin. Because I never ran. You are responding to fair inquiries from both myself and User:Alachuckthebuck with personal attacks. Are you soliciting a boomerang? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz, You've got everything mostly correct, however, commons does have IBANs, however, they are VERY rare. The project has only ever imposed 2 IBANs, and one of them was a duplicate of an enwiki ARBCOM sanction. Also, conduct like this is the reason A.Savin had a U4C case filed against them, where they were de-sysoped and banned from holding advanced rights for 1 year on commons. Marcus did have good reason to file things to commons, but did not link to diffs showing misconduct here on Commons. Thank you to Nakonana for actually explaining the situation calmly.

Marcus, you're an admin here, and if you look at this page, there's quite a bit of discussion by nonadmins here, and as an admin, you are held to a higher standard than normal community members. I've had my fair share of issues with A.Savin, but you're not helping your case by getting angry and attacking people who are just trying to understand the issue at hand because the initial report didn't have enough information. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 04:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Of course if there would be a valid IBAN threatened with block in case of violation both for me and for MC, including the mandate of me keeping away from any discussions related to MC and of MC keeping away from any discussions related to mine, I would be fine with that. However, what we currently have, is: MC don't wish to interact with me, but at the same time feels perfectly free to jibe at me whenever there is an occasion: see this or this or this fully unprovoked attacks for example. I wanted to ask as politely as I'm just able, why does he have to spread as much hatespeech about me and what have I done to deserve this — but he deletes all discussion attempts and tries to intimidate me by legal threats. --A.Savin 16:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

A.Savin, "Stop it, or I will ask the Foundation for a global ban. Last warning." is not a legal threat. You need to strike/edit that. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually it's even worse than a threat of legal measures in a functioning Rechtsstaat. Both MC and me live in Germany and I'm not hiding in anonymous nicknames. So if he is convinced that I'm committing a criminal offence he should go ahead and file a police report against me -- otherwise it's clearly a libel -- "stalking" is definitely German StGB criminal offence. That would be at least a transparent and fair procedure, unlike a "WMF Office Ban on demand". --A.Savin 19:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

So you're implying that MC is guilty of both libel and stalking, and yet he's the one making legal threats? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Leaving aside the specifics of what may have happened on the German Wikipedia, there can't be a much clearer case of importing drama from another wiki than Special:Diff/1192770639, which begins, "Auf der sogenannten Deutschen Wikipedia ist mir unter Sperrandrohung verboten worden, mich dir anzunähern…" (rough translation via my non-fluent German: "On the so-called German Wikipedia I've been forbidden, under threat of suspension, from contacting you…" As a former Commons admin, there is no way A.Savin does not know how utterly out of line that is.

@A.Savin: Will you simply promise to leave Marcus alone? That is certainly the outcome I would prefer, but if you won't commit to that I really don't see any other choice here than to block your account. - Jmabel ! talk 22:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC), edited 05:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a formal IBAN would be better here. GPSLeo (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I also suspect a two-way IBAN would be better. A.Savin already agreed to a two-way IBAN, would you agree to that too @Marcus Cyron? We should probably make an exception for accidental contact, for example when starting a mass deletion request for files in a category VFC will notify all uploaders which might include the other user. I never know beforehand which users will be notified. Such an exception should of course not be abused, it should be extremely rare if it ever happens at all. Finally, in my view it's rather problematic that A.Savin refused to take back his accusation that Marcus would have made a legal threat, and Marcus' personal attacks here ("Are you able to read?", "Perhaps that's precisely why you're not an admin") aren't great either. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel I see a few options here short of a ban, but I'm unfamiliar with dewiki and how they handle user conduct issues, but my understanding is that there is an IBAN on dewiki between these 2 people. If we don't indef A.Savin for this, and that is a big IF, a page block on all of marcus's userspace is the bare minimum, if not a full formal (one or two way) IBAN, with the understanding that any violations of the IBAN will be an automatic indef. Or we could just indef, I think we've given A.Savin enough ROPE to hang themselves 2 times over, so anything short of an indef is being kind. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 19:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Alachuckthebuck, I assume "a page block on all of marcus's userspace" includes Marcus' user talk? That's a problem because it'd prevent notification of deletion tagging. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: obviously, there is the mass-deletion edge case you mentioned above, but other than that, if there is an IBAN, A.Savin should not be deletion-tagging Marcus's uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 02:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Wie kommen Sie eigentlich darauf, dass ich vorhätte, Marcus' Uploads für Löschung zu nominieren? --A.Savin 08:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

A.Savin, nobody says you're planning to, we're just saying that anyone who starts a mass deletion request doesn't know in advance all the users that will be notified by VFC. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I normally define userspace as anything in the user namespace (not user talk or archives), but in this case it would include anything in the user talk namespace EXCLUDING the main user talk page. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 04:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Đinh Hoàng Bảo Khanh

Đinh Hoàng Bảo Khanh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user – Uploading unfree files after warnings. Kim Nito (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user for a week and will delete some more copyvios. Taivo (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Roxas345

Roxas345 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
I tried at User talk:Roxas345#Notification about possible deletion but I'm clearly not getting through. (assuming Special:Contributions/~2026-22259-21 is indeed also Roxas345) They continue to upload copyvios. Courtesy ping @Omphalographer - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:32, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@User:Dronebogus

Dronebogus (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
This user make mass DR requests for AI generated images.
The problem is what user seems like intentionally ignore previous DRs of images what kept and possibly ignore COM:EDUSE.
Examples of ignoring prev DRs (see the nomination pages):
File:Black skull front view wearing a tiny medieval helme 28110c69-ac02-45f4-b9a8-17065a674755.png
File:DALL·E 2023-04-24 21.48.18 - two pigs, hearts, valentine's day.png
File:Awful aberration d4abca6b-53e2-429c-a8c8-03fc2ea7c0a1.png
And there's example of possible ignoring COM:EDUSE (in the nomination page):
File:Illustration of grief by AI; 'Recently Widowed'.jpg
SomeFancyUsername (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Being kept in the past doesn’t make them immune or exempt from deletion. And EDUSE is not the end-all-be-all of scope on Commons. From COM:NOTUSED: The fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Common mistakes in photography" does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs. The fact that an unused snapshot of your friend could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Photographic portraiture" does not mean that we should keep all photographs of unknown people. The fact that an unused pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography does not mean that we should keep low quality pornographic images Dronebogus (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I can agree with this, but your mass DRs are too borderline for vandalism. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Dronebogus is on a personal crusade to en:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS relentlessly nominating increasingly large numbers of files regardless of how useful they can be or their quality (often indeed low) with subjective invalid slightly-uncivil "AI slop" nonrationales based on the production method which he hates (and there's lots of kinds of files people hate but that in itself is not a good reason for deletion). Some housekeeping is good but the user doesn't seem to pay attention to actual quality or usefulness and just appears to try to delete as much as possible that's produced with the tool he dislikes; I doubt this is a pattern good to allow users to engage in. Maybe next some users for weeks mass-nominate all artistic files that are made with computers or portraits made with photocameras or files that in their view insult Islam or whatever else some sizable fraction of society disliked or dislikes a lot. It's more disruptive than constructive imo. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment from what I can tell, over 90% of Dronebogus's nominations for DRs are upheld. (If someone can present evidence that it is less than 80%, you may have a case here.) Yes, he's probably on a bit of a crusade here, but others appear to me to be on a crusade to upload AI slop and see what sticks. I don't see this as requiring admin intervention. - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

"a crusade to upload AI slop and see what sticks" you say? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

•  Comment the first case, image was nominated as a copyright violation in 2022; it was closed as kept as not being a copyviol. The recent nomination was for entirely different reason, as being out of scope. Nominating 4 years later for an entirely different reason does not seem to be "intentionally ignore previous DR". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Of the four DRs listed in original post, two had past DRs kept solely on copyright grounds with no mention of scope, one kept as INUSE because Prototyperspective created a marginal Wikidata item to put it in (which it has now been correctly removed from), and one is unused with no actual use cases found. I don't see any of that as evidence of abuse (and IMO all four images should be deleted). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's a very important concept. Is it such a strange concept that animals can have affection for their conspecifics, and not just their pet owners?

All the more important there is at least one free-licensed file about that subject on Commons. It's currently the only visualizing this concept. Maybe it's not good enough for the item, but I think even an image that is not perfect but helps understand a concept is useful and it was removed without replacement. If it's not used, it can and is still useful.

Disregard whether or not it's used: don't delete useful stuff. Dronebogus also nominate other files that are useful such as the only free-licensed short film about climate change, useful as for example as an example of what's possible with AI video and what AI short films are etc. He also called the "Illustration of grief" file "slop" when it's of high-quality and just debatable whether it's useful and whether it should be used (I think it's useful enough to be kept). Prototyperspective (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

A low-quality AI-generated image of two cartoon pigs with hearts floating over them is not an educationally useful illustration of this subject. If it were in use, I suspect it'd be more of a distraction than it is helpful. Omphalographer (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it? The image is not really low-quality either. And it's not just the floating heart but also their entire expression. How would you visualize it? A photo of two pigs being located somewhere near each other? If there's a better image, the use could be replaced with it and I'd have no issue whatsoever with that. Even then, there's no need to delete this image and neither would it be a good thing to do; not everyone has to make the same choice of which file to use as Wikimedians in the wikiprojects. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Some things just don’t have or need visualizations, and even things that do or should have them certainly don’t need AI slop visualizations (and make no mistake, a low-quality AI cartoon of two pigs with hearts is textbook slop) Dronebogus (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

certainly don’t need AI slop visualizations disagree on you on that. It's not "certainly", it's the opinion of you and clearly some admins, particularly an opinion where you did not substantiate much or at all why it would be that way. Call it slop if you want, but it's still useful to understand and quickly see the concept. Maybe it shouldn't be used – I see how maybe it shouldn't be used in a large English Wikipedia article or on Wikipedia overall – but that doesn't mean it's not useful. Once again, Commons isn't just there for files that can be on Wikipedia or are used on a wikiproject, the scope is much broader and about general realistic educational use. This is the only image actually visualizing this important subject, and it does it well despite of neglectable imperfections. And if it wasn't clear enough, just calling sth "low-quality AI cartoon" is not a particular good point and doesn't negate all that. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

All files mentioned above are clearly out of scope. There are on abusive deletion requests here. The only misconduct are the false accusations against the nominator. GPSLeo (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to second GPSLeo here, while Dronebogus isn't perfect, this section is not an issue and is Dronebogus creating valid DRs regarding out of scope content.

Could the threads be more civil? Probably.

Are the DRs themselves invalid, malformed, or retaliatory? No.

I don't see any major issues with Dronebogus's conduct at this time. However, Prototyperspective needs to remain more civil, casting aspersions about someone's personal views in a SCOPE DR is absurd. This is not the first time DB and Proty have butted heads here, and it's getting ridiculous. Dronebogus and protyprspective should both take a good read of MELLOW. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 22:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I was not casting aspersions about someone's personal views. If you do not see the point I was making then that doesn't mean I wasn't making a point and it was that, as clarified there already, which kind of images can or can't have "soul" in them and the assumption that they'd have to is [Dronebogus] personal opinion and not a good point. Calling indiscriminately many things "AI slop" is somewhat uncivil and in contrast to that I made a concrete point that just points out how Dronebogus claim is not making much sense and tries to get the DR more on the grounds of calm rational deliberation instead of what's increasingly taking place. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Prototyperspective, if I am not mistaken, is topic banned from AI on enwiki. I’m not sure what exactly led to that sanction but it’s easy enough to guess given their conduct here. Dronebogus (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Iirc, and I asked for a precise reason, it's because I commented too often based on the bludgeoning guideline there. Here I left 2 comments and replied to a reply to one of it as well as corrected a user who falsely claimed I was "casting aspersions about someone's personal views". May misinformation about what I did may please not stand uncorrected; it's important this is corrected. That all images need to have "soul" in them to be useful (per COM:EDUSE and not just on Wikipedias) is not a good point and it's fine to clarify it; I don't think the way I wrote that is easily misunderstood but probably it could be written better and clearer. You continue the crusade to en:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and the uncivil accusations of indiscriminately everything AI as AI slop among other things; I did not start this thread. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Also I can note that it's Dronebogus, not me, who casts personal view aspersions about others, and repeatedly so (plus they are false). e.g. "You are free to have your robot buddies draw the sparkly techno-utopia you believe generative AI will usher in as a symbolic counterpoint." at here (and after I just clarified I have a nuanced neither just-indiscriminately-negative nor not-just-positive view of genAI). This is happening frequently instead of a) being respectful and civil and b) seeing and considering or addressing the actual point. Additionally, I don't think it's good conduct to accuse others of "casting aspersions about someone's personal views" when they didn't do so but named a fallacy in the explanation(s) for why to delete a useful file. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to second GPSLeo here, while Dronebogus isn't perfect, this section is not an issue and is Dronebogus creating valid DRs regarding out of scope content.

Could the threads be more civil? Probably.

Are the DRs themselves invalid, malformed, or retaliatory? No.

I don't see any major issues with Dronebogus's conduct at this time. However, Prototyperspective needs to remain more civil, casting aspersions about someone's personal views in a SCOPE DR is absurd. This is not the first time DB and Proty have butted heads here, and it's getting ridiculous. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 19:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

As a general statement, I find the wording of Dronebogus's deletion rationales to be poor ("AI slop" isn't a good deletion rationale, "Out of scope: [fill in one of: COM:AIIP/unused personal art/severe misgeneration issues prevent this from being usable/etc.]" is). However, I almost never see them file a DR where the outcome isn't deletion.

On the other hand, quite a lot of the time, I see Prototyperspective reply to those DRs with arguments that have no basis in Commons policy or guidelines (appeals to emotion, convoluted and highly improbable fictional scenarios, etc.). I've run out of patience trying to respond to them, because it doesn't seem to do any good.

I'm not a huge fan of either user, going back to previous rounds of interpersonal conflict (back before Adamant was indeffed for their role in said conflicts), but I find Prototyperspective's selective [seemingly knowing] disregard of policies vastly more disruptive than I find Dronebogus's rapid fire DRs with insufficient rationales. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not making appeals to emotion; if I did I apologize but ask you to point to it. The scenarios of usefulness are not improbable and there to make a clear point that one can agree or disagree with. And they have a base in policy eg because EDUSE asks for a realistic educational use and what I describe is what I argue such a case which again may not be shared. If I disregarded any policy, please explain which and how/where. Arguing in DRs is common and the purpose of DRs. If you often disagree with my arguments that's not a general issue. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

+1 to convoluted and highly improbable fictional scenarios Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Another +1. As I've said more than once, simply asserting that an image is "useful because it is the only AI-generated image of [something highly specific]" does not actually make it so. Omphalographer (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Every single one of the DRs that was mentioned in the initial complaint here has resulted in deletion of the file in question. It is clearly not the consensus of the community that these were "bad" DRs. Clearly there is no basis for administrative action here.

@Dronebogus: The Squirrel Conspiracy is probably right that you would ruffle fewer feathers if you would take very slightly more time to state clearer DR rationales than just "AI slop." I hope you take that advice. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Milan Szymon Szulc

Milan Szymon Szulc (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

note: reinstating this because there was no outcome when I put this up a few weeks back, he has also since started pushing me to upload his files or grant him autopatrol. This behavior has continued, and I also note that Verdy p suspects Hillsilo to be a sock of MSS, despite this edit from them implying they are separate people. note: taking back this comment, while they edit in similar fields and both have the same habit of repeating requests at Verdy p, they are most likely different people.

original comment: User has repeatedly demanded that @Verdy p fulfill their requests to change various Unicode-related files, also demanded Autopatrol rights when questioned by @Abzeronow over at COM:RFR. applecuckoo (he/him) 20:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

My own take: about the only time it is OK for Person A to press Person B to do particular work when Person B has asked Person A to stop doing so is when the work is about fixing a problem Person B has caused (e.g. "you uploaded 3000 files without categories, fix them before you do more uploads). This is not that sort of case, and Milan is out of line. If he won't stop, this merits a block. - Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Milan Szymon Szulc WHAT? NO! I’M NOT A SOCKPUPPET OF YOU AND I JOINED EARLIER THAN YOU! Hillsilo (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

And he is clearly not either responding here or stopping the behavior. Special:PermanentLink/1196081588#Can_you_added_J_Button_Emoji_in_favorites.

Clearly merits a block. I'd be open to anything up to and including indef. Does anyone else have an opinion? - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel, the user clearly won't behave. He continues to "order" and refuses to engage here. So I would support a block here (duration is for you to decide). Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm going for indef. There is no sign that they have any interest even in discussing their behavior, let alone changing it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done indef-blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Jairojimenez6

Jairojimenez6 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) brand new account, almost immediately embroiled in an ongoing argument; hard to believe this isn't somebody's sockpuppet or meatpuppet. See my remarks at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Canal 24 Honduras.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana: it looks like you may have more idea than I do as to what is going on here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel that's probably another sock of User:Carlosarevalohn. You blocked some previous socks in the past. Nakonana (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel and @Nakonana: I added to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Carlosarevalohn.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

They have continued with what appear to me to be vandalistic edits. I suppose it is still of interest whether they are a sock, but in my opinion there is enough vandalism here for an indef-block regardless. - Jmabel ! talk 04:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

It probably makes sense to check for socks. Last time the user who uploaded the Channel 24 Honduras logos as well as the users who nominated the files for deletion were all socks of Carlosarevalohn, so I wouldn't be surprised if every new user who posted in the two relevant DRs would turn out to be a sock (including the uploader of the logo). Nakonana (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done - Jmabel ! talk 04:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Linkspamming

@Melkosa54 All this user's edits are irrelevant link spamming "kiraztv" links into information temps disguised as minor. For example, see this inappropriate and irrelevant link additionon or . They also need to be mass reverted. The only other thing they seem to have done is to upload as free several logos that are imo way too complicated to be free. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Mass revert already performed. We only need an indefinite block now. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 03:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

All uploads are now on the chopping board. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 04:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

More of Alex Neman's problematic uploads

Hi admins, can we please delete more of the following. Yann and I dealt with this with Yann blocking Alex Neman Indefinitely and upon appeal the block was shortened by Taivo for three months. I was viewing this just to see what needed to be tidied up and saw a spam of Alex Neman's rear view photos.

This has been an ongoing issue with Alex Neman, and it has not been limited to this project. He has been blocked as a sockpuppet and banned on the English Wikipedia. Quite frankly I don't think the reduced block of three months was justified, this has been an ongoing issue as cited on the previous ANI report by Jeff G. and also continued block evasion on the EnWp. Either he is to be banned indefinitely because it is clear he has competence issues. A large number of them were very unlikely he asked consent from the women he pictured. I've also requested for speedy deletion for these uploads FYI.

This has taken me hours to do up, I hope this helps. Put yourself in your partner's shoes (i can't because i'm single, and never dated, and don't wish to anytime soon). --LuvsMG481 (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@LuvsMG481: Do I understand correctly that you created a separate DR for each of these, rather than a mass DR? If so, why? Are there some of these that present significantly different issues than others? They look pretty parallel to me. - Jmabel ! talk 05:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey Jmabel. I'm not very sure how to do these 'mass deletion' requests nor never done them before. Thats why i brought it here for you guys to sort out. I'm new to this Wiki, so I'm trying to learn the ropes. I apologise but I figured it would be easier otherwise if we do a regular DR request it would take ages, if not months. I don't know a lot of the templates here, and would love to have some assistance with these --LuvsMG481 (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I've created Commons:Deletion requests/Files on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems for you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries The Squirrel Conspiracy. But to be fair, the 'creepshot' is only one aspect, he has been warned time and time again about these issues hence why I wanted these nominated plus based on past complaints as well and Neman's past blocks. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@LuvsMG481:

1. Assuming "'creepshot' is only one aspect" refers to the DR, you can raise other issues there as well.
2. I take it you are pursuing something other than just a DR, though, or you would not be here at COM:AN/U. Is there something you are bringing up here that you consider new, and that you thing Taivo may not have taken into consideration? If so, could you please be specific about that. Otherwise, I think that rather than extend the block, anything would more likely be a matter of setting conditions on the user's conduct after they are allowed to return and, again, if that's the case please spell out what you'd be looking for someone to impose.
3. As for creating a mass DR: this would probably have been pretty easy with VFC. If you are likely to do anything similar in the future, that is a tool you should probably learn to use.

- Jmabel ! talk 06:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

True and thats why I think i would like to have autopatrol rights to enable for these :). Regardless, we will wait for Yann to handle this, because he dealt with a similar story last time. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@LuvsMG481: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

All good Jeff G., this was discussed already. I'm just doing what I can to clean up Wikimedia commons and ensure its a proper free respiratory system, thats why we are here! Also Jmabel sent me the instructions, so we are all good. Can we all focus on the issue at hand please, not on my inability to use mass deletion, we are wasting time here otherwise, when we have an issue with Neman's which is ongoing for the last 2-3 years. Thank you --LuvsMG481 (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@LuvsMG481: I have been aware of Neman's inappropriate behavior for over three years. I think indef is much more appropriate than a mere three months.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Jeff G.. I think we should do a community proposal on whether we should indef Alex Neman or should we keep the three months. I'm not sure how to do it mate, would you be kind enough to do it for me, or show me how to do it please --LuvsMG481 (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@LuvsMG481: A !votes subsection below would do the job.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• I would want to see some comment from @Alex Neman: before commenting further (with an unblock for this purpose, if necessary). Do they understand the problem here? Are they willing to avoid that in the future? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you this Andy Dingley, but he's not gonna apologise and fix his errors. He promised to stop block evasion on EnWp but then was discovered by an admin using an IP to evade his block. Then we have more bullshit, pretend to be retired when he was blocked using an IP, which led to page being protected, more block evasion using IPs. This is literal proof that he's not going to keep his promises. --LuvsMG481 (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)